Loading ITAT cases…
530 orders · Page 4 of 11
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) 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) 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 Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, decided to dismiss the revenue's appeal. The appeal was deemed not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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 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 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 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 decision without merit consideration is infirm.
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 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 infirm.
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 assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147/148 was invalid due to the lack of proper reasons and unauthorized inquiries. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid jurisdiction was annulled.
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 ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is infirm.
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 ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and giving reasons for the decision. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and giving reasons for the decision. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
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 considering merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that interest expenditure on loans for acquiring right shares cannot be allowed as a cost of acquisition under Section 55(2). However, it allowed the appeal regarding brought forward long-term capital loss and credit for TDS and advance tax, subject to verification.
The Tribunal held that there was no merit in the present manual appeal as the assessee had already filed an electronic appeal. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the electronic appeal and dispose of any delay.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal granted the prayer of the assessee as the revenue representative did not object.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income, even if expenses were incurred. The decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The assessee's cross-objection regarding Section 10A deduction was also dismissed as the income did not pertain to manufacturing and export of goods.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT for issuing the notice under Section 148 was mechanical and without application of mind, making the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received under the New Industrial Policy for industrial development and employment generation in J&K are capital receipts. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as no exempt income was earned.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and without a reasoned order, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done because the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties and providing reasons. Dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits is an infirmity.
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 infirm.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte without proper opportunity and without addressing the merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal restored one issue to the AO for fresh examination due to a 'dumb document' and expunged the CIT(A)'s direction to assess income in the hands of another entity, stating the CIT(A) exceeded his powers.
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 infirm.
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 or without deciding on 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 an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is infirm.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeals ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without adjudicating on the merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a reasoned decision.