Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that only two notices of hearing were issued to the assessee before rejection. The counsel for the assessee submitted that if given an opportunity, they would comply with all requirements. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's deliberate non-compliance and evasiveness. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT correctly observed that the penalty was initiated under incorrect provisions and that no enquiry was made regarding the commission paid for obtaining bogus accommodation entries. The assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The additions in this case were on estimation, thus the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The additions in this case were on estimation, thus the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal. Despite consistent non-compliance by the assessee, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a final opportunity to present the case on merits, emphasizing that further non-cooperation would allow the AO to pass orders based on available material.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The additions in this case were on estimation, and therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the ill health of the assessee's Chartered Accountant. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for de novo consideration, with a clear directive to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documentation.
The Tribunal held that the mere inclusion of the word "religious" in one of the trust's objects, particularly if it's for imparting spiritual knowledge and not for religious purposes, does not negate its charitable nature. Citing Section 80G(5) and Explanation 3, as well as Section 80G(5B), the Tribunal noted that if religious expenditure does not exceed 5% of total income, 80G provisions apply. The tribunal found that the assessee's primary object is education and not religious activity, and therefore, the denial of 80G registration was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for cash deposits was based on festive season sales and provided some confirmations, but crucial documents like a stock register were missing. The Tribunal found it necessary to set aside the matter for de-novo consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was a procedural lapse, not a violation of a mandatory requirement. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that the assessee should not be denied exemption solely on this ground.
The ITAT observed that while the CIT(Appeals) considered substantial additional evidence, they did not take into consideration the Assessing Officer's comments or remand report, potentially violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) order did not specify when the additional evidence was sent to the AO and that no remand report was received.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions sustained on an estimated basis, especially when payments were made through account payee cheques. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal found the facts to be similar and set aside the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the ill health of the assessee's Chartered Accountant. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for de novo consideration, with a clear directive to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documentation.
The Tribunal noted that only two notices of hearing were issued to the assessee before rejection. The counsel for the assessee submitted that if given an opportunity, they would comply with all requirements. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The additions in this case were on estimation, thus the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's deliberate non-compliance and evasiveness. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wants to withdraw the appeal as they have opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and submitted relevant forms. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's tax consultant failed to guide him properly, resulting in non-compliance with notices and failure to provide evidence. The Tribunal, considering that an ex parte assessment order was confirmed by the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) and was violative of the Act.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act is a charging provision for levying fees for defaults in filing statements, and such fees can be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation. The delay in filing was due to the death of the appellant's parents, but this reason was not found sufficient to waive the statutory fees and interest.
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- after allowing Rs. 6,60,000/- towards accumulated savings and Rs. 2,00,000/- from GPF. The Tribunal found that the assessee was a salaried employee for 35 years and the accumulated savings, along with her son's, should be sufficient to explain the addition sustained by the CIT(A).