Loading ITAT cases…
106 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly examining the merits of the case. 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 and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly examining the merits of the case. 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) passed an order without properly examining the merits of the case. The appeals were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly examining the merits of the case. The appeals were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits of the case. The appeals were accordingly set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits of the case. The appeals were accordingly set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO failed to bring any cogent evidence to rebut the assessee's explanation or conduct a proper inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO failed to bring any cogent evidence to rebut the assessee's explanation or conduct a proper inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO failed to bring any cogent evidence to rebut the assessee's explanation or conduct a proper inquiry.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. 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 and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. 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 and the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A, prior to its amendment on June 1, 2015, did not contain enabling provisions to levy late fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of such fees for statements processed before this date was not justified.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and that the order was passed without considering the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A, prior to its amendment on June 1, 2015, did not contain an enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of such fees for statements processed before this amendment was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO failed to bring any cogent evidence to dispute the transactions or establish a direct link to price rigging.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO failed to bring any cogent evidence to rebut the assessee's explanation or conduct a proper inquiry.
The assessee's counsel requested permission to withdraw the appeal as their application under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme was accepted and Form 3 was issued. The revenue representative did not object.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard and 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 was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits of the case, which is not justifiable. 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) passed an order without properly examining the merits of the case. The appeals were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly examining the merits of the case. The appeals were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal 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) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals are therefore set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits of the case. 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 and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly examining the merits of the case. The appeals were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. 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 and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. 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 and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) was violated as the assessee was not given a proper hearing. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) passed orders without properly examining the merits of the case, which was not justified. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) is a fundamental aspect of natural justice. The assessee was not given a proper hearing, and therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the current appeal as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file fresh applications if Form 5 was not issued by the Income Tax Department.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly examining the 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 an order without properly examining the merits of the case. 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 order without properly considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without examining the merits of the case. 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 an order without considering the merits of the case, which is not justifiable. 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) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. 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 and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).