Loading ITAT cases…
649 orders · Page 5 of 13
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals ex-parte without proper hearing and reasoning is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is bound to decide the appeal 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) 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 held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification, which are binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and the huge capital gains. The share price rise was found to be artificial, and the company's fundamentals did not support it, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) must decide appeals after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a reasoned decision after affording an opportunity.
The ITAT 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 infirm.
The tribunal 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 an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was bad in law because it did not specifically indicate the charge for which the penalty was initiated, nor was the irrelevant portion struck off. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.
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 infirm.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals ex-parte without considering merits is an infirmity.
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 CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without deciding on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was found to be 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 considering merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is bound to decide appeals after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals ex-parte without considering merits or providing sufficient opportunity 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 ex-parte without considering merits is an infirmity.
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 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 going into merits is infirm.
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 agreed that the penalty would not survive as the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by a previous ITAT order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without merits or failing to provide reasoned orders is infirm.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without merits or failing to provide reasoned orders is infirm.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it crucial for determining if the services constituted FTS. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision considering these new documents.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after affording sufficient opportunity and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is an infirmity.
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 considering merits is infirm.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeals ex-parte and without providing a reasoned order. The CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals after hearing parties and stating reasons, not dismiss them for non-prosecution without considering merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue of capital gains to the CIT(A) for re-examination, allowing the assessee to present its case and relevant documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing and providing reasons for the decision. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is infirm.
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 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 ex-parte without proper hearing and without going into merits is infirm.
The Tribunal 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 considering merits is infirm.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in a similar case involving penny stock transactions.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals ex-parte without proper hearing and reasoning 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 appeals for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS, as per a CBDT circular and the fact that payments were made to the Special Judge, not directly to landowners. Therefore, penalty under Section 271C was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal ex-parte without going into merits is infirm.
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 ITAT 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 proper opportunity is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is bound to decide the appeal after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is infirm. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a reasoned decision after affording a proper hearing.
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 considering merits is infirm.
The Tribunal 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 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) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without deciding on merits. The tribunal emphasized the requirement for a reasoned order as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and without a reasoned order, violating the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
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 ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and provide a reasoned order, which is a procedural infirmity. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
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 held that the CIT(A) is obligated to adjudicate appeals on their merits, even if the assessee has been negligent. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
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 considering merits is infirm.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without going into the merits. The tribunal emphasized the requirement for a reasoned order under Section 250(6) of the Act.