Loading ITAT cases…
74 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that the two-day notice period for the revision proceedings violated natural justice. However, since the Pr. CIT directed the AO to examine the issue rather than make a direct addition, and the original assessment did not examine the Pr. CIT's concerns, the revision order was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a detailed speaking order after obtaining a remand report, with liberty to draw adverse inferences if the non-cooperative attitude persisted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order due to the assessee not being granted adequate opportunity to be heard, especially considering the pandemic period. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for re-adjudication, noting that the assessee had not been heard by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order contained erroneous factual recording regarding the assessment proceedings and was non-speaking. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a proper re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order contained erroneous factual recording regarding the assessment proceedings and was non-speaking. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a proper re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order contained erroneous factual recording regarding the assessment proceedings and was non-speaking. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a proper re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order contained factual errors regarding the type of assessment orders passed and lacked proper reasoning. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a speaking order after recording correct facts.
The Tribunal held that provisions for expenses are not allowable. However, considering the submission of actual payment, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow expenses in the year of payment after due verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order contained erroneous factual recording regarding the assessment proceedings and was a non-speaking order. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order contained erroneous factual recording regarding the assessment proceedings and was non-speaking. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a proper re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order contained erroneous factual recording regarding the assessment proceedings and was non-speaking. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a proper re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order contained factual errors regarding the nature of original assessments and lacked proper reasoning. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order after recording correct facts.
The assessee's authorized representative stated that they did not wish to press the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was not obtained for the final assessment order, rendering it erroneous. It also found that the assessment orders were ante-dated and passed after the limitation period, based on the impossibility of completion on the stated date and lack of dispatch entry.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was not obtained correctly for the final assessment order, and the assessment orders were passed subsequent to the alleged date and were therefore barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was not obtained correctly for the final assessment order, and the assessment orders were passed subsequent to the alleged date and were therefore barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the regulatory income was notional and hypothetical, as it had not been received by the assessees. Following the principle of real income, it ruled that such income should not be taxed in the impugned assessment years but only when received.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was not obtained correctly for the final assessment order, and the assessment orders were passed subsequent to the alleged date and were therefore barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was not obtained correctly for the final assessment order, and the assessment orders were passed subsequent to the alleged date and were therefore barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the regulatory income was notional and hypothetical, as it had not been received by the assessees. Following the principle of real income, it ruled that such income should not be taxed in the impugned assessment years but only when received.
The Tribunal held that the regulatory income was notional and hypothetical, as it had not been received by the assessees. Following the principle of real income, it ruled that such income should not be taxed in the impugned assessment years but only when received.
The Tribunal held that the regulatory income was notional and hypothetical, as it had not been received by the assessees. Following the principle of real income, it ruled that such income should not be taxed in the impugned assessment years but only when received.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was not obtained correctly for the final assessment order, and the assessment orders were passed subsequent to the alleged date and were barred by limitation.