Loading ITAT cases…
190 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have allowed the entire TDS credit instead of dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay. The appeal was allowed to grant the balance TDS credit.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits to uphold principles of natural justice. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case and will be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing principles of natural justice and the need to advance substantial justice. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on deposits with District Central Cooperative Banks is business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The AO was directed to verify the nature of the banks and allow the deduction if correct.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear before the lower appellate authority, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to provide another opportunity for hearing in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to properly substantiate their case, and the CIT(A) was given liberty to proceed on merits if the assessee failed to do so.
The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing Form No.10AB should be treated as directory, not mandatory, considering CBDT circulars and a High Court decision. The matter was remanded for decision on merits.
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The legal heir is directed to substantiate the case and will be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing principles of natural justice and the circumstances of the case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision and a Madras High Court ruling, holding that the timeline for filing Form 10AB should be treated as directory and not mandatory. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the application on merits.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its case based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear, set aside the impugned order to uphold the principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, restored the assessment to the AO for de novo assessment based on the principle of natural justice. This is subject to the assessee depositing Rs.5,000/- with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the timeline for filing Form No.10AB should be treated as directory, not mandatory, considering the transitional nature of amendments and CBDT circulars. The Madras High Court's decision on the illegitimacy of certain circular clauses was also noted.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its case based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear before the lower authorities, set aside the impugned order to uphold principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after providing a proper hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing the principle of natural justice and granting another opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CPC should not have hurriedly processed the return without waiting for the outcome of the condonation petition filed before the CBDT. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the submitted Form No. 4 and revise the computations accordingly. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the respondent's plea, set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee another opportunity of hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case, subject to a cost.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the assessee no longer wished to pursue it after the penalty was dropped.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-appearance. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing Form No.10AB under Section 80G(5)(iii) should be treated as directory, not mandatory, considering the extensions granted by CBDT circulars and a Madras High Court ruling. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, but upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate delay in filing the first appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, but upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, but upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay, set aside the impugned order, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case, and an opportunity of hearing was to be granted.
The ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000.
The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity for a de novo assessment, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- within 30 days.
The Tribunal, while agreeing with the Revenue, granted another opportunity to the assessee based on natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, while agreeing with the Revenue, granted another opportunity to the assessee based on the principle of natural justice. The assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing Form No. 10AB should be treated as directory, not mandatory, considering the transitional nature of amendments and genuine hardship. Following a co-ordinate bench decision and a Madras High Court ruling, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the delay should have been condoned by the CIT(A) considering the period of delay fell within the Covid-19 Pandemic lockdown. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide it on merits.
The Tribunal, while agreeing with the Revenue, granted another opportunity to the assessee on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the penalty issue was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted another opportunity to substantiate its case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory. Following a previous decision and a High Court ruling, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the Foreign Tax Credit.
The tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000, to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The CIT(A) will re-adjudicate the appeal de novo.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard and explain the delay.
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was done to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, adhering to the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal, while noting the lack of details, set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a reasonable cause for the belated filing of the appeal. The penalty order was considered duly served via the assessee's registered email.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear, decided to grant another opportunity for hearing in the interest of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's non-appearance, set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication to uphold the principle of natural justice.