Loading ITAT cases…
185 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay were not sufficient to condone such a significant period of over seven years.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal confirmed the action of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals due to the inordinate delay. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the delay, which was considered gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the significant delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, showing gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the action of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the assessment year, no disallowance could be made under Section 14A. The decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Maxopp Investment Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Observing that the CIT(A) might have sent notices to an old email ID, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one more opportunity to present their case with evidence, subject to a cost of ₹1,000.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, decided to grant one last opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the ends of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required details.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is granted one more opportunity to substantiate his case with evidence, subject to paying ₹.2,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to comply, decided to grant one last opportunity to substantiate the case before the Assessing Officer to meet the ends of natural justice.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back. The assessee is to be given one more opportunity to present their case with explanations and evidence.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, decided to grant one final opportunity to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer to meet the ends of natural justice. This was subject to a payment of ₹.2,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The Tribunal, while noting the lack of explanation from the assessee before lower authorities, decided to grant one more opportunity to substantiate the case before the Assessing Officer to meet the ends of natural justice.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). This was subject to the condition of paying a cost of ₹1,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case with material evidence before the Assessing Officer. The appellate order was set aside and the matter was remitted back.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that belated payment of employee's contribution to PF & ESI cannot be allowed as a deduction, even if remitted before the due date for filing the return of income. This decision follows the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeals on merits after dismissing them on technical grounds. Since the assessment order was ex-parte and the appeals were dismissed unheard, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to re-consider the issue after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee could provide some evidence, a significant portion of the expenses lacked substantiation. Therefore, a further relief of 50% on the sustained addition was granted.
The Tribunal held that the 5-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was bonafide and reasonable. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional Madras High Court's ruling that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned.