Loading ITAT cases…
47 orders · Page 1 of 1
The ITAT held that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order on merits, which is not in accordance with justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without properly examining the merits of the case. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back for a decision on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without properly examining the merits of the case. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back for a decision on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the entry tax addition was due to a clerical error and directed its deletion. The ad hoc disallowance of expenses was also deleted as it was disproportionate to the unverified expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the very basis for levying the penalty (the quantum additions) had been deleted, the penalties themselves could not stand. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the very basis for levying the penalty (the quantum additions) had been deleted, the penalties themselves could not stand. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 64 days, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and that the merits were not dealt with. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT found that the assessee was not provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard and the CIT(A) did not adjudicate on the merits. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since no meaningful opportunity was provided to the assessee, the matter should be reconsidered by the CIT(Appeals). The impugned order was set aside and restored back to the file of the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal held that since no meaningful opportunity was provided to the assessee, the matter should be reconsidered by the CIT(Appeals). The impugned order was set aside and restored back to the file of the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, finding a reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, upholding the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing a due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, finding a reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, upholding the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly examining the 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) also failed to pass 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 the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly 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 Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) also failed to pass a reasoned order on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) was bad in law as it was passed without providing a proper and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without considering the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) did not pass the order on merits, which is not justifiable. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside.
The Tribunal held that Buhler AG, Switzerland had a 'business connection' in India through its subsidiary BIPL, which habitually exercised authority to conclude contracts, maintained stock, and secured orders. Therefore, the income from the transaction was deemed to accrue or arise in India, making TDS applicable.
The ITAT 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 Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard 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) did not pass a reasoned order on merits, which is not in accordance with justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities failed to consider the documentary evidence provided by the assessee, which clearly established that the cash deposit related to his wife's business income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without a reasoned decision on merits, which is not justifiable. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided complete details of land holding and crop patterns. The AO did not provide material to suggest the income was from business. Therefore, the addition should have been deleted in full.
The tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable as it was passed without considering the merits and without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following a previous decision on similar facts, held that the interest income earned by the credit society on bank deposits was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without a reasoned decision. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified as the assessee was not provided with necessary material and an opportunity for cross-examination of the third party. The case was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment after providing these opportunities.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without a reasoned decision on merits, which is not justifiable. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that Buhler AG, Switzerland had a 'business connection' in India through its subsidiary BIPL, which habitually exercised authority to conclude contracts, maintained stock, and secured orders. Therefore, the income from the transaction was deemed to accrue or arise in India, making TDS applicable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective 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 and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without passing reasoned orders on merits. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without passing a reasoned order on merits. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry into the cash deposits, as evidenced by the questionnaire, replies, and supporting documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 for certain reasons, specifically regarding the high ratio of refund to TDS, low net profit, and mismatch in payments to related persons, as the AO had not conducted adequate inquiries. However, for other reasons concerning large other expenses and mismatches in income heads, the Tribunal found that the AO had conducted proper inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained expenditure on gold bullion purchase was based on an incorrect stock movement analysis, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence. Regarding loan creditors, the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing confirmations, PANs, and bank statements, shifting the onus to the Revenue, which failed to disprove the genuineness.