Loading ITAT cases…
375 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and adjudicate it on merits, considering the assessee is a trust. The assessee was also directed to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal granted another opportunity to the legal heir to substantiate the case, restoring the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. The legal heir was directed to provide requisite information and was afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the incorrect clause was chosen by mistake. It directed the CIT(Exemption) to consider the application under the correct clause and adjudicate it on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had extended the timeline for filing such applications. Therefore, the rejection solely on the grounds of timeline was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CBDT had extended the timeline for filing such applications. Therefore, the rejection based on the timeline was set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to consider the application on its merits.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing a reasonable hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the rejection based on the timeline was invalid due to the subsequent extension granted by the CBDT. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to consider the applications on their merits.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted another opportunity to the assessee 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 hearing in the interest of natural justice. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s view to be reasonable and cogent, relying on a co-ordinate bench decision. Therefore, the Tribunal did not interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The matters were restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity based on the principle of natural justice. The matters were restored to the AO for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The matters were restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The matters were restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The matters were restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The matters were restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee having subsequently been granted the registration they had applied for.
The Tribunal acknowledged the error and corrected the order. The corrected passage states that if the assessee includes income in AY 2008-09, the AO will delete the addition/disallowance in AY 2004-05.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have considered the FMV of both land and buildings as of 01.04.2001 for computing capital gains. The AO is directed to examine all evidence furnished by the assessee for cost of improvement, land, and building.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity based on the principle of natural justice. The matters were restored to the AO for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity based on the principle of natural justice. The matters were restored to the AO for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and provide necessary information, with all issues kept open for reconsideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the return of income and directed the CIT(A) to admit the assessee's appeal and decide it on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of natural justice, but imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to not admit the appeal due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. The assessee was unable to provide valid reasons for the delay even before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity based on natural justice. The matter is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable hearing opportunity to the assessee.
The ITAT, while acknowledging the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A), set aside the order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, to uphold the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee having subsequently been granted the registration they had applied for.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to present its case and provide necessary information.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of substantial justice and, invoking the principle of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a hearing opportunity and consider the outcome of the petition filed under Section 119(2)(b).
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had accepted 95% of the substantial cost and the engineer's certificate was provided. Therefore, the disallowance was without merit.
The tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The matter has been restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following coordinate bench decisions and a Madras High Court ruling, the Tribunal held that the extended time limit for filing Form 10AB applies. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide complete documentation to substantiate its case, ensuring principles of natural justice were followed.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after rectifying the appeal fee defect. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing in the interest of natural justice. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The ITAT, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for a fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) based on the principle of natural justice. The assessee is directed to provide the necessary substantiation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of natural justice, restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and provide requisite information.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity based on natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, noting that similar appeals for earlier assessment years were dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, finding no change in facts and the issue covered by earlier orders, dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption was not justified, especially since the trust was registered since 1950. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for a de novo adjudication by the CIT(A) on payment of Rs. 5,000/-. This is to uphold the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on natural justice. This is subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 to be deposited by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the time limit for filing the application under Form No. 10AB should be extended as per subsequent CBDT circulars and a Madras High Court decision. Therefore, the rejection on grounds of timeline was set aside.
The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity for hearing. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the delay was minor, excluding the pandemic period, and should have been condoned. The matter should have been adjudicated on merits.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity to substantiate its case based on the principle of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- within 30 days.