Loading ITAT cases…
92 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for non-appearance and directed that the matter be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity to present their case with necessary documents and evidence.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee will be given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to a violation of natural justice, as the material relied upon by the Department was not confronted to the assessee. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the additions made were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee is capital in nature and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional ITAT.
The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the violation of natural justice, as the material relied upon by the Revenue was not confronted to the assessee. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the additions made were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present her case due to incorrect service of notices. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including cash book entries, bank statements, and affidavits from individuals, to explain the cash deposits. The lower authorities had erred in disregarding this evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present her case due to incorrect service of notices. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The tribunal held that an order passed in the name of a deceased person, when the department is aware of the death and the legal heir's representation, is void ab initio. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was quashed.
The Tribunal held that since both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the assessee's point of view, it violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte. To provide natural justice, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to non-service of the order. The matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be bonafide due to pending rectification applications. The CIT(A) had failed to issue a show cause notice regarding the delay and had not adjudicated the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was unsustainable as it violated principles of natural justice by not affording a proper hearing. The order was set aside, directing a fresh decision after adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity of hearing. The notices were sent to an incorrect email address.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A, as the assessee agreed to be bound by the Supreme Court's decision on a similar issue pending before it. However, grounds related to issues not adjudicated by the CIT(A) were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments beyond six years under Section 153A requires tangible evidence of income escapement of Rs. 50 lakhs or more. Since the evidence, primarily based on a DVO's report without corroboration, did not meet this threshold, the reopening for the relevant assessment years was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments beyond six years under Section 153A requires tangible evidence of income escapement of Rs. 50 lakhs or more. Since the evidence, primarily based on a DVO's report without corroboration, did not meet this threshold, the reopening for those years was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments beyond six years under Section 153A requires tangible evidence of income escapement amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs or more. Since the evidence in this case did not meet this threshold, the reopening for the relevant assessment years was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments beyond six years under Section 153A requires tangible evidence of income escapement of Rs. 50 lakhs or more. Since the evidence, primarily based on a DVO's report without corroboration, did not meet this threshold, the reopening for the relevant assessment years was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order on merits and lacked proper findings. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A, as the assessee agreed to be bound by the Supreme Court's decision on a similar issue pending before it. However, grounds related to issues not adjudicated by the CIT(A) were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A, as the assessee agreed to be bound by the Supreme Court's decision on a similar issue pending before it. However, grounds related to issues not adjudicated by the CIT(A) were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, treating the interest reimbursement under the TUF scheme as a capital receipt. This was based on previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts regarding the scheme's purpose.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice as no effective opportunity was provided to the assessee. The order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice as no effective opportunity was provided to the assessee. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee did not receive proper notice on their registered email. Therefore, the order was set aside and remanded for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the difference in the amount was due to the AO considering bank deposits for only a partial period of the financial year. The assessee had actually shown more in their bank accounts than what the AO had considered.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, noting that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that a CBDT circular extended the time limit for filing Form 10AB. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to re-examine the issue in light of the circular.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, as similar payments to the same individuals had been accepted in earlier assessment years. The Department failed to demonstrate any material change in facts or provide comparable cases to prove the payments were excessive.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, as similar payments to the same individuals had been accepted in earlier assessment years. The Department failed to demonstrate any material change in facts or provide comparable cases to prove the payments were excessive.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, as similar payments to the same individuals had been accepted in earlier assessment years. The Department failed to demonstrate any material change in facts or provide comparable cases to prove the payments were excessive.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, as similar payments to the same individuals had been accepted in earlier assessment years. The Department failed to demonstrate any material change in facts or provide comparable cases to prove the payments were excessive.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the sale consideration and the FMV for Unit No. C214 was 2.25%, which is less than the 5% threshold provided in Section 43CA(1). Therefore, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's bonafide reasons. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that merely uploading a notice on the ITBA portal does not constitute effective service. The principles of natural justice require proper and adequate opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and following a jurisdictional High Court judgment, remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the mistake was rectified and the assessee had no further grievance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.