Loading ITAT cases…
16 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposed a token cost, and noted contradictory submissions regarding the nature of the assessee's business. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It directed the AO to estimate the commission income at 5% of the total turnover and deleted the addition made under Section 69A for demonetized notes, considering it part of the gross turnover.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits and the legal heir had not been properly represented. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits and the legal heir had not been properly represented. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits and the legal heir had not been properly represented. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal on their merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's grievance about not being granted a proper hearing and the need for further examination of evidence, remanded the matter back to the CIT (Exemption). The CIT is to provide the assessee one more opportunity to present its case and supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that valid service of the statutory notice under Section 148 is a mandatory requirement for assuming jurisdiction. Due to disputed service of notice and potential jurisdictional issues, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's rejection was bad in law due to a subsequent amendment in the Finance Act, 2024, which allowed entities that had commenced activities to file applications at any time. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to treat the application as filed within the statutory time and verify eligibility.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) must make further inquiry or direct the AO to do so and dispose of the appeal in writing with reasons.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and lacked proper discussion of facts and submissions. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that while the inquiry by the AO might have been inadequate, it was not a complete lack of inquiry. Since the amended provisions of Section 263 (Explanation 2) were not applicable to the assessment year in question, the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the registered sale deed carries a presumption of correctness in the absence of evidence of payments beyond the recorded consideration. The DVO's report is an opinion-based estimate and cannot substitute the registered deed, especially when the co-owner's assessment accepted the declared investment.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 263 to a deceased person is legally invalid and all subsequent proceedings are void ab initio. The assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that while filing the audit report is mandatory, the act of filing is procedural. Since the audit report was available with the AO at the time of processing the return, it should have been considered. The Tribunal also noted a beneficial CBDT circular issued after the rejection order.
The Tribunal is remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is due to the CIT(A)'s failure to consider all grounds of appeal and the specific legal provisions applicable to the assessment year.