Loading ITAT cases…
375 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case, considering the principle of natural justice. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case, failing which the CIT(A) can proceed on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing principles of natural justice. The assessee was granted another opportunity for a de novo assessment at a cost of Rs. 2,000.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case. This opportunity is subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's personal circumstances. While acknowledging the failure to substantiate the cash deposits, the Tribunal granted a final opportunity for de novo assessment on payment of costs.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. This was done to grant the assessee another opportunity of hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering a recent CBDT circular extending the time limit for such applications and the assessee's failure to make representations, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were out of earlier withdrawals and thus not unexplained. It also found that the assessee did not receive any part of the sale consideration for the property.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: On the first issue, regarding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), the Tribunal held that the hire charges paid to Belgium-based companies were not liable for tax in India, and therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted, and the corresponding grounds were allowed. On the second issue, concerning the TP adjustment for hire of dredgers and vessels, the Tribunal found that the assessee had benchmarked the transaction using the CUP method based on independent valuer certificates. Citing the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in a similar case and noting that the TPO had accepted the CUP method based on Bureau Veritas certificates in the assessee's own case for subsequent years, the Tribunal deleted the ALP adjustment made by the AO and rejected the aggregation approach adopted by the TPO. The corresponding grounds were allowed. On the third issue, regarding TP adjustment for technical services, the Tribunal noted that on identical facts, the issue had been decided against the assessee in AY 2010-11, where the Tribunal found that the assessee had computed the fee in a manner that disregarded the agreement with its AE. Therefore, the impugned adjustment proposed by the TPO was confirmed, and the corresponding grounds were dismissed. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the claim of TDS credit for Rs. 1121.01 Lacs and allow credit accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were out of earlier withdrawals and thus not unexplained. It also found that the assessee did not receive any part of the sale consideration for the property.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted another opportunity to the assessee to present its case. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- within 30 days.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adopt a liberal approach in condoning the delay, especially considering the medical condition of the assessee. The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. This was done to grant the assessee another opportunity of hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the extended time limit for filing applications, as per CBDT circulars and a Madras High Court decision, would apply. Therefore, the rejection based on the timeline was set aside.
The Tribunal noted a recent CBDT circular extending the time limit for such applications to 30.06.2024. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to consider the application on its merits.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, decided to grant another opportunity based on the principle of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, citing principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate their case. The lower authorities' orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the assessee is a trust. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order due to non-compliance and directed the CIT(E) to consider the application on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing, in light of a recent CBDT circular extending the deadline.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the assessee is a trust. It set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(E) to consider the application on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering a recent CBDT circular extending the time limit for such applications and the fact that the assessee did not make any representation, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that filing Form No. 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory. Therefore, the denial of Foreign Tax Credit based on late filing of the form was incorrect.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order, which confirmed the disallowance of employee's contribution based on Supreme Court and Madras High Court precedents, does not require interference. The tribunal also noted consistency with its own prior decisions.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence and absence, granted another opportunity based on natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for substantiating the case based on the principle of natural justice. This is subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal, while not remanding the matter to the AO, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) on a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the extended timeline for filing applications, as per CBDT Circulars and a Madras High Court decision, would apply to Form 10AB as well. Therefore, the rejection based on the timeline was set aside.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and a delay of 35 days in filing the appeal, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case. This opportunity is subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed on a technical default without considering the merits of the addition. The assessment was set aside and restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal. If the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed, the assessment order would remain operational. Therefore, the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) should be treated as allowed on legal grounds.
The Tribunal found that the mistake was inadvertent and did not prejudice the assessee's appeal rights. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.
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 Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored both appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- within 30 days and will result in a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The assessee was directed to provide details and substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and provide necessary information.
The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- within 30 days and will result in a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was on a technical ground and the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the mistake. The CIT(E) was directed to provide an opportunity to rectify the application and consider it on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored both appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- within 30 days and will result in a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- within 30 days and will result in a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was on a technical ground and the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the mistake. The CIT(E) was directed to provide an opportunity to rectify the application and consider it on merits.
The Tribunal held that reopening a case requires 'reasons to believe' income has escaped assessment, not merely 'reasons to suspect'. The AO lacked tangible material to justify the reopening, rendering the assessment order invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the principle of natural justice. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The ITAT, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, restored the penalty appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication to provide an opportunity for the assessee to defend its case, adhering to the principle of natural justice.
The tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for a de novo assessment on cost. The assessee must deposit Rs. 5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within 30 days and furnish proof to the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case and substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for substantiating the case based on the principle of natural justice. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence and delay, granted a final opportunity for de novo adjudication by the CIT(A) on payment of costs, to uphold principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the delay should have been condoned, considering the period of the COVID-19 lockdown and the alternative remedies pursued. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the appeal and decide it on merits.