Loading ITAT cases…
62 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate a specific ground raised by the assessee regarding cash deposits pertaining to business income. Therefore, the issues were restored back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, directing that a reasonable opportunity be provided to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessee and the revenue had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the claimed expenses with direct evidence like bills and vouchers. The fact that the books of accounts were audited does not exempt the assessee from the onus of proving their claims.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits regarding the Rs. 9,14,620/- adjustment, as the assessee had not received the 143(1) intimation and the adjustment was reflected in the assessment order. The issue is restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) specified the exact evidence required from the assessee and passed orders without providing a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the impugned appellate order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT notification increasing the leave encashment exemption limit to Rs. 25,00,000/- is retrospective in nature. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for the entire claimed exemption of Rs. 8,14,303/-.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of receiving the property as sale consideration for goods and services needs factual verification. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the issue of property valuation back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the assessee's objections regarding the DVO's valuation methodology and provide valid reasons for any variation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim that the bank account did not belong to him required factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of receiving the property as sale consideration for goods and services needs factual verification. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.