Loading ITAT cases…
530 orders · Page 3 of 11
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 Lakhs and applied to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without proper opportunity is an infirmity. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without addressing merits is infirm.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) must decide appeals after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without merits is infirm. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a reasoned decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. An ex-parte decision without considering merits is infirm. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a reasoned decision after affording an opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeals ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without a reasoned order. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest paid to NOIDA is exempt from TDS under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) based on Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding the cash deposit from closing stock sale and past cash balance was consistent and supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that the issue on merits had been set-aside to the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue of penalty levy back to the file of the CIT(A).
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is infirm.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by deciding the appeals ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and without deciding on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) must decide appeals on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and providing reasons for the decision. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to cure defects and decide the appeals afresh.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal ex-parte without considering merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by deciding the appeals ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and without deciding on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest paid to NOIDA is exempt from TDS under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) based on Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order suffered from infirmity as it was passed ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing and without deciding the appeals on merits with reasons. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without a reasoned order and without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations are capital receipts and not taxable, even without 12AA registration, especially when registration is granted in a subsequent year. It also held that the repair and maintenance expenses were allowable as the books of account were audited, payments were through banking channels, and TDS was deducted.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties and providing reasons. An ex-parte dismissal without considering the merits is infirm.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is an infirmity. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by deciding the appeals ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and without deciding on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by deciding the appeals ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and without deciding on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was set aside, the penalty appeal also did not survive. Consequently, the issue of penalty levy was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by deciding the appeals ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and without deciding on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by a previous co-ordinate bench decision. It directed the AO to verify if the acquired land was appurtenant to a residential house and then decide the claim under Section 54/54F, treating the interest under Section 234B as consequential.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of commission addition to the difference between the market rate and the admitted rate. It also deleted the addition on account of unexplained cash credit, considering it a protective addition.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is infirm.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without proper opportunity is an infirmity.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of commission addition to the difference between the market rate and the admitted rate. It also deleted the addition on account of unexplained cash credit, considering it a protective addition.
The Tribunal held that the occurrence of fraud was not in doubt, and the claim of embezzlement was established. The difference in amounts between the FIR and the claim was explained by cost versus market value, and the loss was allowable as per CBDT circulars.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) must decide appeals on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and providing reasons for the decision. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to cure defects and decide the appeals afresh.
The Tribunal agreed with both parties that the penalty issue should also be set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, in line with the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition issue was set aside, the penalty appeal also did not survive. Consequently, the penalty issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without deciding on merits. The CIT(A) is required to provide a reasoned order after hearing both parties.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without deciding on merits. The CIT(A) is required to provide a reasoned order after hearing both parties.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of commission addition to the difference between the market rate and the admitted rate. It also deleted the addition on account of unexplained cash credit, considering it a protective addition.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without deciding on merits. The CIT(A) is required to provide a reasoned order after hearing both parties.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were educational in nature and in furtherance of its charitable objects. The income generated was used for charitable purposes, and therefore, the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without deciding on merits. The CIT(A) is required to provide a reasoned order after hearing both parties.