Loading ITAT cases…
68 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not in accordance with law as the transaction of Rs. 7,00,000/- occurred on March 10, 2021, which falls in AY 2021-22 and not AY 2022-23.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity. It restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after examining the books of account and supporting evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide all supporting documents. This was done to ensure a fair hearing due to the assessee's non-compliance before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that the matter required proper examination of supporting documents and evidence. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the entire bank deposits as unexplained income. Since the assessee claimed presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, the bank deposits should be considered as business receipts. The addition was restricted to the difference between the total bank deposits and the income computed at the presumptive rate.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that denying a substantive claim solely due to a clerical or technical mistake is not justified, especially when the eligibility is otherwise verifiable. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have furnished supporting documents that were overlooked. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present submissions before the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present submissions before the AO.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-compliance but, in the interest of justice, granted one final opportunity. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides necessary documentation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in the interest of substantive justice, as it was due to a lack of timely legal advice. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back for re-examination. Key issues to be reconsidered include the applicability of Section 44AB, the limitation period for issuing the penalty notice, and the assessee's actual status (business vs. agriculturist).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for reassessment de novo, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating the merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, with a direction to consider the condonation of delay and then decide the appeal on merit if the delay is condoned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to properly examine the condonation of delay application and the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(26). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.