Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that while the levy of fees under Section 234E was valid for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the fees for the period prior to this date should be deleted. The levy is prospective from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that while the levy of fees under Section 234E was valid for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the fees for the period prior to this date should be deleted. The levy is prospective from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available to cover the investments in fixed assets. The revenue failed to rebut the assessee's contention that interest-bearing funds were utilized for business purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not object to the valuation before the Assessing Officer but raised it before the CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) has coterminous powers, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the levy of fees under Section 234E was valid for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the fees for the period prior to this date should be deleted. The levy is prospective from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by M/s. Korea Search were for placement services and did not fall under the definition of technical services as per Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source.
The tribunal held that the appeals were defective because a separate appeal should have been filed for each quarter. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that while the levy of fees under Section 234E was valid for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the fees for the period prior to this date should be deleted. The levy is prospective from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that while the levy of fees under Section 234E was valid for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the fees for the period prior to this date should be deleted. The levy is prospective from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) had not passed a reasoned order on merits, which is not in accordance with justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte orders without proper examination. The Tribunal set aside the orders of both lower authorities and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also failed to pass a reasoned order on merits.