Loading ITAT cases…
88 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal rejected the condonation petition, finding the reasons, particularly the attempt to blame the advocate, unacceptable. It held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable and sufficient cause for the 155-day delay and therefore dismissed the appeal in limine.
The Tribunal ruled that an appeal against a Section 143(1) intimation does not become infructuous due to a subsequent Section 154 rectification order, as rectification merely modifies the original order which retains its independent appealability. Citing Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer (1998) 230 ITR 306 (Kar), the Tribunal remanded the case to the A.O. for verification, directing that the addition be vacated if the income was indeed disclosed in the return.
The Tribunal condoned a 19-day delay in filing the appeal and, following a previous Coordinate Bench decision, found that Rule 87 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was erroneously applied by the lower authorities for Provident Fund contributions. The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of Rs.1,69,779/- and also deleted the Rs.42,19,631/- addition confirmed by the CIT(A), as it was adjudicated on a ground not raised before him.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was invalid and barred by limitation, as it was issued after the expiry of the six-year period prescribed under the unamended Section 149(1)(b). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to substantiate the salary expenditure beyond the amount supported by EPF records. It held that the A.O. and CIT(A) were justified in disallowing the unsubstantiated portion, as the expenditure did not meet the conditions of being wholly and exclusively for business purposes under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in 'The Chebrole Large Sized Co-operative Society Limited Vs. ITO', held that interest income derived by a primary agricultural co-operative society from fixed deposits in nationalized banks, made from its own surplus funds, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Consequently, the disallowance made by the A.O. for Rs. 16,88,240/- was directed to be vacated.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as per the unamended provisions of Section 149(1)(b) and the Supreme Court's decision in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found the Ld.CIT(E)'s rejection order to be non-speaking, lacking specific reasons for the denial. Citing natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld.CIT(E) to provide the assessee another opportunity to furnish all required documents and pass a fresh speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal before it, citing reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal further remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) to decide the case on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(E)'s order non-speaking, observing that it merely stated a lack of substantial charitable activities without specifying how the activities were non-charitable. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) to provide another opportunity to the assessee to furnish details and pass a speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(E)'s order non-speaking, observing that it merely stated a lack of substantial charitable activities without specifying how the activities were non-charitable. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) to provide another opportunity to the assessee to furnish details and pass a speaking order on merits.
The tribunal noted the insertion of a new proviso to Section 12A (w.e.f. 01.10.2024) empowering the CIT to condone delays for reasonable cause. Since the rejection order was issued after this proviso came into effect, the tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) erred by not considering the assessee's explanation for delay and the new statutory provision. The tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for re-consideration of delay condonation and the application on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the principle of natural justice. The tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 19.04.2022 was barred by limitation as per the unamended provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which expired on 31.03.2022. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed to be without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal, adopting a liberal approach to 'sufficient cause' based on Apex Court decisions, condoned the 468-day delay, finding it bona fide and not deliberate negligence. The case is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance but also the substantial penalty and the request for an opportunity, decided to grant a final chance for substantiation. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with the expectation of full cooperation from the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection order was casual, non-speaking, and lacked specific reasons for deeming the activities not charitable. It set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide another opportunity to the assessee to submit documents and to pass a speaking order deciding the case on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to produce the required details before the lower authorities. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to examine the details regarding members and commission income, allowing the assessee another opportunity to furnish the same for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding the addition of Rs. 29,80,000/-, the Tribunal found that the assessee had made payments through banking channels over and above the registered value for property purchase. The sellers had confirmed receipt of these amounts via affidavits, confirmation letters, and bank statements. The Tribunal considered that the assessee had established the payment of this amount over and above the document value through banking channels, confirmed by the sellers. Therefore, the addition made by the AO, denying exemption under section 11, was deemed not justifiable, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. 2. Concerning the disallowance of Rs. 5,11,910/- for foreign travel expenses, the Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that these expenses were for educational seminars and deputing priests for advanced studies abroad. However, the assessee failed to establish the relevance of sending priests abroad for higher education or provide cogent evidence for the expenditure. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument and upheld the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO. This ground was dismissed. The Tribunal expressly left no issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The primary issue was the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal, referencing judicial pronouncements including the Apex Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [167 ITR 471], emphasized that a liberal approach should be adopted when considering delay condonation, especially for "bona fide reasons" to advance substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal found the reasons provided for the delay (managing trustee's accident, COVID-19 situation) to be sufficient and bona fide. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was condoned. The appeals were remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision to restore the matter does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the Ld. CIT(A). The decision in ITA No. 126/VIZ/2025 (AY 2019-20) was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 127/VIZ/2025 (AY 2020-21).
The Tribunal held that appeals should be decided on merits and that a liberal approach should be adopted for condoning delays due to bona fide reasons. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had misinterpreted the remand report and failed to conduct proper inquiry. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both the quantum addition and the penalty.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had misinterpreted the remand report and failed to conduct proper inquiry. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both the quantum addition and the penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's accident. It directed the Assessing Officer to apply the pre-amended tax rate of 30% on the addition made under Section 69A, following a favorable High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of the penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) was justified. It was an admitted fact that the assessee did not file the return voluntarily under Section 139(1) but did so in response to a notice under Section 148, disclosing the rental income available in Form 26AS. Crucially, there was no variation between the returned income and the assessed income. The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that bank accounts were frozen due to non-payment of PF arrears for earlier years, which prevented the assessee from discharging the income tax payment for the impugned assessment year. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the AO was not justified in imposing the penalty under Section 270A, as there was a bonafide cause for the non-filing of the return under Section 139(1) and no under-reporting of income attracting the penalty provisions. Therefore, no interference with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was required, and the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the fact of the gift from the mother was undisputed and since the mother's assessment, where the source of the gift was questioned and an addition was made, was pending adjudication before the CIT(A), the same amount could not be simultaneously added in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the addition under section 69 was not justifiable.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of revisionary proceedings under Section 263 was not justified solely for the purpose of directing the initiation of penalty proceedings. The failure of the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction for penalty initiation does not vitiate the assessment order.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief. It held that the amendment to the proviso of Section 201(1), extending benefits to non-residents, is clarificatory and retrospective in nature, not imposing new liability. As the seller had discharged their tax liability, there was no revenue leakage, and thus the assessee could not be considered an 'assessee in default'.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and the AO's failure to record satisfaction for initiating penalties does not render the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Relying on various High Court precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the Pr.CIT exceeded his jurisdiction under section 263 by substituting his view and directing penalty initiation. Consequently, the impugned revision orders passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the JDA entered into in 2012 was the deemed date of acquisition. Since the sale of two flats occurred in AY 2017-18, after more than three years from the deemed acquisition, it should be treated as Long-Term Capital Gain. The AO erred in considering the JDA entered in FY 2016-17.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of revisionary proceedings under Section 263 was not justified solely for the purpose of directing the initiation of penalty proceedings. The failure of the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction for penalty initiation does not vitiate the assessment order.
The Tribunal found that the fact of the gift from the mother was undisputed and since the mother's assessment, where the source of the gift was questioned and an addition was made, was pending adjudication before the CIT(A), the same amount could not be simultaneously added in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the addition under section 69 was not justifiable.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) mistakenly considered a National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) order pertaining to a different assessee (Shri Dhana Raju Thota) as belonging to the current assessee. Given this error, the tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 by the Pr.CIT was not justified. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rakesh Nain Trivedi's case and the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies, which held that the failure of the Assessing Officer (AO) to record satisfaction regarding the leviability of penalty in the assessment order does not vitiate the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the Pr.CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by substituting his view and observing that the AO had passed an erroneous order prejudicial to the revenue solely because penalty proceedings under Section 270A were not initiated. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue merely due to the AO's omission to initiate penalty proceedings. Consequently, the revisionary order passed by the Pr.CIT under Section 263 was quashed, and the grounds raised by the assessees were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of fly ash was not to be taxed as revenue income, considering the restrictions on its utilization as per government notifications. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(iib) was also allowed.
The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of fly ash was not to be taxed as revenue income, considering the restrictions on its utilization as per government notifications. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(iib) was also allowed.