Loading ITAT cases…
68 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) to provide one last opportunity for the assessee to substantiate their case with requisite details.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide comparable cases for the gross profit margin applied. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case and decide based on facts and law.
The assessee's authorized representative sought to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal acceded to this request and permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issues to the file of the lower appellate authority, directing the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee will be given an adequate opportunity to present evidence to reconcile the collected information.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the assessee had not produced evidence before the AO and had failed to respond to notices from the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and restored the matter to the CIT's file for readjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish the required details for registration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's educational background and the nature of his business. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding the deposit of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). It restored the quantum appeal to the AO for readjudication and quashed the penalty appeal as it was consequential to the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). It restored the quantum appeal to the AO for readjudication and quashed the penalty appeal as it was consequential to the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal restored the issues of unexplained cash credit and disallowance of trade expenses to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce evidence in support of its claims.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's written submissions and evidence, and had made factual observations not supported by the record. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had prejudiced the case by relying on the non-submission of the remand report without adequate opportunity. The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to ensure natural justice and allow both parties to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any material to demonstrate a reasonable cause for accepting the sale consideration in cash. The argument regarding the insertion of clause (iv) in the Explanation to Section 269SS and the applicability of Section 269ST was also not accepted.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the quantum assessment order were deleted, there was no basis for levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not attributable to the assessee, as they were awaiting the disposal of their rectification and grievance petitions. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not attributable to the assessee, as they were awaiting the disposal of their rectification and grievance petitions. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.