Loading ITAT cases…
84 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was not sustainable due to the absence of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Relying on various judicial pronouncements, it was stated that this defect cannot be cured under section 292BB of the Act.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and allowed it. The appeal was dismissed as 'withdrawn'. Both parties were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if the DTVSV-24 settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to both parties to apply for restoration if the DVSV-2024 settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the respective assessees.
The Tribunal found the DVO's estimated FMV of Rs.26/- per sq. mt. as on 01.04.1981 to be on the lower side, considering that the average of comparable instances in DVO's own report was above Rs.33/- per sq. mt. Therefore, the AO is directed to adopt Rs.60.00/- per square meter as the FMV for capital gains computation. Additionally, the AO is instructed to allow the deduction under section 54 after verifying facts and requisite conditions, providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) observing that the assessment order was not served on the assessee and that the assessee was interested in contesting the matter. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 298 days in filing the appeal before it, citing the assessee's detention in Nepal and the negligence of the consultant. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the respective assessees.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal agreed to treat the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act concerning interest and dividend earned from co-operative banks is squarely covered by a series of decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal itself. Specifically, the Tribunal referred to decisions in Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. vs. ACIT, and in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal noted that the co-ordinate bench in Althan Bhatar Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ACIT had held that co-operative banks are primarily co-operative societies and interest earned on deposits with them is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal also addressed the revenue's reliance on the Karnataka High Court decision in PCIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society, stating that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Surat Vankar Sahkari Sangh has binding precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act with regard to interest and dividend income received from Valsad District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The grounds of appeal concerning these additions were allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the 12A application solely based on one object and not considering the objects as a whole. For the 80G application, the Tribunal followed a precedent and directed the CIT(E) to examine the application on merits, considering the intent of a subsequent CBDT circular extending the filing deadline.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the respective assessees.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions and principles of consistency, found that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications as non-maintainable and in not affording a proper hearing. It remanded all applications back to the CIT(E) for *de novo* consideration in accordance with law, with a direction to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and allow further submissions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the 12A application solely based on one object and not considering the objects as a whole. For the 80G application, the Tribunal followed a precedent and directed the CIT(E) to examine the application on merits, considering the intent of a subsequent CBDT circular extending the filing deadline.
The Tribunal observed that the grounds of appeal were similar to those in previous cases (ITA Nos. 1193 to 1203/Srt/2024), which were restored back to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, these appeals were also restored back to the CIT(E) with similar directions.
The Tribunal found that the issues were identical to previously decided cases where similar applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Following these precedents, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications de novo, providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessees, and to pass orders in accordance with law, considering the registration/approval from the date of the original application.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the respective assessees.
The Tribunal, relying on its consistent decisions in similar appeals, found that the applications were improperly rejected. It remanded all applications back to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass orders in accordance with law, effective from the date of respective applications.
The Tribunal, following its consistent previous decisions in similar cases, restored all applications to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, allow further submissions, and pass orders in accordance with law, treating the applications as valid from their original filing date.
The Tribunal, relying on its consistent past decisions, determined that the CIT(Exemption) had erred by rejecting the applications without a proper hearing and by misinterpreting the law regarding maintainability. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded all cases back to the CIT(E) for a de novo consideration, with directions to provide a fair opportunity of hearing and decide the applications on merits, granting registration/approval from the date of application.
The tribunal, following consistent previous decisions, restored all appeals back to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the applications de novo, provide a reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing to the assessees, and pass orders in accordance with law, including allowing registration/approval from the date of application.
Following its own precedents on similar grounds, the Tribunal remanded all the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh ('de novo') consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing to the assessees, allow them to submit further information, and consider the applications for registration/approval from their respective application dates.
The Tribunal, relying on its consistent decisions in similar earlier cases (ITAs No.1193 to 1203/Srt/2024), held that the applications were wrongly rejected as non-maintainable or premature. It directed the CIT(E) to restore the applications for de novo consideration, grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and decide on allowing registration/approval from the date of respective applications in accordance with law.
The Tribunal, following earlier decisions, held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without considering them on merits or providing adequate opportunity of being heard. All applications were remanded back to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration, with directions to provide a fair hearing and decide according to law.
Following consistent prior decisions, the Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. It directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications de novo, provide a fair opportunity of hearing, allow further submissions, and pass orders in accordance with the law, allowing registration/approval from the date of respective application.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions and principles of consistency, found that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications as non-maintainable and in not affording a proper hearing. It remanded all applications back to the CIT(E) for *de novo* consideration in accordance with law, with a direction to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and allow further submissions.
The Tribunal, following its consistent decisions in similar cases, restored all the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, allow further submissions from the assessees, and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, including considering registration/approval from the date of respective applications.
The Tribunal, following its consistent previous decisions on similar matters, restored all appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, allow further submissions, and pass orders in accordance with law, considering the applications from their respective filing dates.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on fresh tangible material and dismissed the assessee's additional grounds challenging it. Regarding the addition under Section 50C, the Tribunal directed the AO to take the average of the fair market values estimated in the first and second DVO reports.
The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the submitted documents. Given no objection from the revenue and the assessee's intent to withdraw, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the submitted documents. Given no objection from the revenue and the assessee's intent to withdraw, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate, and the principle of substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. It was also noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without issuing a notice under section 250 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the submitted documents. Given no objection from the revenue and the assessee's intent to withdraw, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate, and the principle of substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. It was also noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without issuing a notice under section 250 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the submitted documents. Given no objection from the revenue and the assessee's intent to withdraw, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's jurisdiction under Section 263. However, it modified the direction regarding TDS disallowance, remanding it to the AO for verification of specific expenses related to daily wages and labour charges. The addition for the property sale difference was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity to the assessee. For AY 2013-14, one penalty appeal was partly allowed, reducing the penalty, while another was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal heard both parties and reviewed the available materials, including Form No. 2. The Revenue's DR had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity to the assessee. For AY 2013-14, one penalty appeal was partly allowed, reducing the penalty, while another was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it was not deliberate. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had decided the matter ex parte due to non-compliance by the assessee with two notices. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case and documents, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal heard both parties and reviewed the submitted documents. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(E) decided the matter ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity to the assessee. For AY 2013-14, one penalty appeal was partly allowed, reducing the penalty, while another was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, subject to the assessee paying a cost.
The Tribunal heard both parties and reviewed the submitted documents. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity to the assessee. For AY 2013-14, one penalty appeal was partly allowed, reducing the penalty, while another was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity to the assessee. For AY 2013-14, one penalty appeal was partly allowed, reducing the penalty, while another was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting and had shown the duty drawback as income in its profit and loss account. Since the duty drawback was not yet received, it should have been treated as receivable. However, there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the expenditure incurred for religious activities in the last three financial years as required by Rule 11AA(2)(g). The CIT(E) also failed to issue a show cause notice before travelling beyond the prescribed period for examination.