Loading ITAT cases…
128 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had granted opportunities, the orders were ex-parte. Following the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) had found that the commission payments were explained and supported by evidence, and that the purchase of the air handling unit was genuine, supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 263 of the Act, which was the basis for the Assessing Officer's consequential order, had been quashed by the ITAT, the consequential order could not survive. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that although the CIT(A) had granted opportunities, the order was ex-parte. Following the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned transaction occurred before the statutory amendment effective from 01/06/2015, which prohibited such cash transactions. Therefore, the penalty levied was deemed bad-in-law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after being satisfied with the reasonable cause. The orders of the learned CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were remitted back to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. A cost of ₹5,000 per appeal was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance and procedural delays.
The Tribunal found that although the CIT(A) had granted opportunities, the order was ex-parte. Following the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had granted opportunities, the orders were ex-parte. Following the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to furnish details. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(E)'s file, directing adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had granted opportunities, the orders were ex-parte. Following the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not furnished sufficient details to the learned CIT(E), leading to the rejection of registration. The assessee's counsel assured that all necessary details would be provided if the case was restored. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to set aside the impugned orders and restore the appeals to the file of the learned CIT(E).
The Tribunal found that while the CIT(E) had granted opportunities, the appeal was dismissed due to non-furnishing of details. The assessee's counsel agreed to furnish the necessary details if the matter was restored. In the interest of justice and natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities, the ex-parte orders warranted setting aside based on principles of natural justice. All impugned orders were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing and for the assessees not to seek unjustified adjournments. Additionally, a cost of ₹5,000 per appeal (total ₹20,000) was imposed on the assessees for non-compliance and procedural delays, payable to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal held that loose sheets of paper containing typed entries, not forming part of regularly maintained books of account, do not constitute material evidence and have no evidentiary value. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such documents was upheld.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the seized documents were mere booking forms based on estimates and lacked evidentiary value. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the conditions for invoking Section 69A were not met and that the revenue failed to prove the documents represented undisclosed transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the impugned addition was indeed below Rs. 60 lakh. Following the CBDT circular which enhanced monetary limits for appeals, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not entertainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular clarifies that belated returns filed under Section 139(4) are acceptable for exemption purposes. Therefore, the denial of exemption based on belated return filing was incorrect. The Tribunal also noted that the registration was granted retrospectively, making the delay in audit report submission understandable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition for excess stock as the assessee had duly explained the difference in valuation with supporting documents. The addition of Rs. 1,59,829 on alleged deficit stock was also directed to be deleted.
The tribunal held that the levy of late fee under section 234E is mandatory for delayed filing of TDS statements. The CIT(A) was justified in upholding the Assessing Officer's order levying the late fee.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) provided opportunities, the order was ex-parte. Following principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case before the CIT(A).
The assessee's authorized representative stated that they did not wish to press the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this submission.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide an affidavit explaining the delay with proper evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee filing a reply. To uphold the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merit. The assessee was directed to provide an affidavit explaining the delay with proper evidence.
The Tribunal noted a delay in filing the appeal and the assessee's explanation for it. The core of the appeal revolves around the validity of corrigendums and a demand notice, which were not fully addressed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital transaction. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.