Loading ITAT cases…
24 orders · Page 1 of 1
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3/5 from the Income Tax Department.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas immunity scheme and received Form No. 3/5.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3/5 from the Income Tax Department.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and obtained certificates from the Income Tax Department.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and obtained certificates from the Income Tax Department.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and obtained certificates from the Income Tax Department.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and obtained certificates from the Income Tax Department.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and obtained certificates from the Income Tax Department.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and obtained certificates from the Income Tax Department.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and obtained certificates from the Income Tax Department.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the provisions for levying late fees under Section 234E were not enabled in Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be imposed for TDS statements filed before this date.
The Tribunal held that the provisions for levying late fees under Section 234E were not enabled in Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be imposed for TDS statements filed before this date.
The Tribunal held that the provisions for levying late fees under Section 234E were not enabled in Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be imposed for TDS statements filed before this date.
The Tribunal held that the provisions for levying late fees under Section 234E were not enabled in Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be imposed for TDS statements filed before this date.
The Tribunal held that the provisions for levying late fees under Section 234E were not enabled in Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be imposed for TDS statements filed before this date.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 124 days, finding the explanation to be bonafide and sufficient. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh decision on merits, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the provisions for levying late fees under Section 234E were not enabled in Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be imposed for TDS statements filed before this date.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies regarding the addition made by the CIT(A) compared to the AO's order.
The tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard due to the prevailing conditions in Kashmir, violating the principles of natural justice.