Loading ITAT cases…
63 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits, even if the assessee fails to appear. Dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits was erroneous.
The Tribunal agreed with the revenue that a breakdown of 'mess fees' was not provided. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh verification and a decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2011-12 as it was time-barred. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order due to lack of proper opportunity of hearing and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2011-12 as it was time-barred. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order due to lack of proper opportunity of hearing and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a separate appeal had already been filed by the assessee against the same impugned appellate order. Therefore, the present appeal was considered superfluous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Section 80IA deduction and commission payments, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning sound. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed to be withdrawn due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was not sustainable. It noted that the assessee had provided substantial evidence of sales, and the deposits were out of these sales, which had already been offered to tax.
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that it was a speaking order providing substantial relief. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition of Rs. 4,00,000.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erroneously concluded that no corroborating evidence was filed for cash purchases, as cash memos were available. The disallowance was based on guesswork, and no specific transaction was found to be bogus. The Tribunal also noted the lack of justification for disallowing freight of diesel.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case. Therefore, the impugned appellate order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo assessment.