Loading ITAT cases…
172 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, and imposed a cost on the assessee for the delay and non-compliance.
The Tribunal remanded the issues of unexplained investment and the difference in property value to the AO for verification and recalculation, allowing the addition for cash deposits. The assessee's share in the property and the applicability of Section 56(2)(x) were to be re-examined.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, and imposed a cost on the assessee for the delay and non-compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to ensure compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to file pending returns and provide supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice and Section 250(1) of the Income-tax Act. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice, noting that the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding the delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to file pending returns and provide supporting documents.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice and ensuring the assessee gets a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to file pending returns and provide supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without adhering to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to ensure proper compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to ensure compliance.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 were deemed invalid.
The tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and AO, restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty appeal was also remanded to the AO, being dependent on the quantum appeal.
The tribunal restored both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal to the AO. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case, considering the ex-parte nature of the previous orders and the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the delayed filing of the audit report is a procedural lapse and not a substantive defect that warrants denial of exemption under sections 11/12. The exemption cannot be denied solely on the ground of delayed filing of the audit report.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and make effective submissions, with a cost imposed for their past non-compliance.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter back to the PCIT. The PCIT was directed to consider these details and decide the revisionary order after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to incorrect email communication, violating natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the AO completed the assessment without waiting for the Valuation Officer's report, despite making a reference.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the mistake of the counsel and the principle of substantial justice. The tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the deposits.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter back to the PCIT. The PCIT was directed to consider these details and decide the revisionary order after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that notices issued for AY 2015-16 on or after April 1, 2021, are invalid and time-barred, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty is consequential to the quantum proceeding. Since the quantum proceeding has been restored to the AO and has not attained finality, the penalty matter should also be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the quantum proceeding is concluded.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It was further held that Section 80P(4) does not disentitle a cooperative society from claiming this deduction.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments held with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's lack of familiarity with tax laws and the death of his brother who was handling the case. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was not satisfactorily linked to withdrawals made earlier. However, considering the materials placed on record and the fact that the CIT(A) had not fully considered them, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was not satisfactorily linked to withdrawals made earlier. However, considering the materials placed on record and the fact that the CIT(A) had not fully considered them, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's explanation and supporting evidence. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all relevant documents, and an adequate opportunity of hearing was to be given.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for reconsideration, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- in each appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present her case with relevant documents.
The CIT(A) allowed the deduction by following a previous ITAT decision for the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13. The Revenue appealed this decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for reconsideration, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- in each appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's lack of familiarity with tax laws and the death of his brother who was handling the case. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Section 80P(4) does not restrict this deduction for the recipient co-operative society.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for retaining substantial cash-in-hand was not inherently improbable, especially for a senior citizen with substantial capital. The lower authorities' rejection of the cash book and the addition were based on assumptions rather than cogent material.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice, and therefore set aside the order.
The Tribunal is hearing appeals against orders of the CIT(A) which arose from assessment orders and penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The case involves reopening of assessment due to sale of immovable property and cash deposits.
The Tribunal is hearing appeals against orders of the CIT(A) which arose from assessment orders and penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The case involves reopening of assessment due to sale of immovable property and cash deposits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation but acknowledged that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without a decision on merit. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require an opportunity of being heard before any modification or rectification is made. Since no such opportunity was given to the assessee, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition without confronting the assessee with the proposed addition and without properly considering the reconciliation statement and gift deeds. The Tribunal found the addition to be unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should not be imposed in this case. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the object of amending Section 269SS was to curb black money in immovable transactions and not to penalize honest and bona fide transactions. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were genuine, bona fide, and duly reflected in the assessee's books of account and sale deeds. The Tribunal also referred to CBDT Circular No. 19/2015, which emphasizes the purpose of curbing black money. Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on decisions of Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal that held penalty under Section 271D cannot be imposed if transactions are genuine and bona fide. The Tribunal found that the assessee had fully established the genuineness and bona fide nature of the transactions. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the case was not heard on merits before the lower authorities due to non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present her case on merit by the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to provide the assessee with another chance to contest the matter.
The Tribunal held that the donation claim was allowable as the exemption for the trust was perpetual unless withdrawn. It also held that the expenditure on software for scientific research was allowable as revenue expenditure, relying on previous judgments and the allowance in a preceding year.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require an opportunity of being heard before making additions. Since the order was passed ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.