Loading ITAT cases…
202 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without examining the merits. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without examining the merits. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.