Loading ITAT cases…
62 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was unreasoned and non-speaking, failing to demonstrate application of mind. The Tribunal emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must provide cogent reasons for their decisions, and the PCIT's order lacked this crucial element.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not considered the DVO's valuation report and the assessee's objections thereto before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) committed a patent illegality by deciding the matter on merits after rejecting the condonation of delay. The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, citing that justice should not be denied on technical grounds.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) decided the appeal ex parte without substantial discussion on merits and without providing the assessee an opportunity to make submissions. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after considering the assessee's submissions, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's unresponsiveness but, in the interest of justice, decided to provide an opportunity for submissions. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without substantial discussion on merits, failing to state points for determination, decision, and reasons as required by Section 250(6). The Tribunal also considered the assessee's grievance about not being provided a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without substantial discussion on merits, failing to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal observed the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but, in the interest of justice, decided to provide an opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly accepted the assessee's total income based on the retrospective application of the amendment to Section 50C, as the difference between the consideration paid and the FMV was less than 10%. The Principal Commissioner's view was considered a change of opinion not supported by judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly accepted the assessee's total income based on the retrospective application of the amendment to Section 50C, as the difference between the consideration paid and the FMV was less than 10%. The Principal Commissioner's view was considered a change of opinion not supported by judicial precedents.
The Tribunal noted that the rejection was based on a technicality without considering the merits of the application. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal held that such technical mistakes should not lead to rejection, especially when the assessee has provided all necessary details and sought correction. The Assessing Officer should have considered the application on merits after allowing for correction of the technical error.
The Tribunal held that since the PCIT's revisionary order (u/s 263) was set aside by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the consequential assessment order was indeed unsustainable. Therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds of merger with rectification orders. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the TDS credit claimed by the assessee after due verification, in terms of Rule 37BA(3)(ii) of the IT Rules, 1962.