Loading ITAT cases…
118 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exception clause from the circular was applicable. The revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal, adhering to principles of natural justice, allowed the assessee's request for another hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was based solely on third-party material without proper confrontation or opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal also noted that the transaction pertained to a different assessment year.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's difficult circumstances due to matrimonial litigation and granted one more opportunity to explain the source of bank deposits. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the minor delay of 21 days, considering the assessee's educational activities. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was directed to file a proper condonation application with supporting evidence and pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was directed to file a proper condonation application with supporting evidence and pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the loss on sale of fixed assets was already accounted for by the assessee and thus the adjustment was deleted. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 43B(f) was due to reporting errors and not a substantive disallowance, leading to its deletion.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice, subject to the condition of planting 1000 trees. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach to be hyper-technical and a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) is not mandatory for a belated return, especially when assessment proceedings were already initiated. The addition on account of export sales was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee provided sufficient documentation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not verified all the documents and facts presented by the assessee. To ensure natural justice, the case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh adjudication after considering all submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appeal before it was barred by limitation due to an unexplained delay of over 55 days. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that inordinate delay without sufficient cause cannot be condoned as a matter of right.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that procedural or technical defects should not defeat substantive rights and that principles of natural justice require providing an opportunity to rectify such defects. The cancellation of applications without proper opportunity was deemed contrary to law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice, subject to the condition of planting 1000 trees. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach to be hyper-technical and a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice, subject to the condition of planting 1000 trees. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach to be hyper-technical and a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice, subject to the condition of planting 1000 trees. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach to be hyper-technical and a violation of natural justice.