Loading ITAT cases…
14 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not appear before the NFAC due to a communication breakdown with their authorized representative. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the NFAC for a fresh decision.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte dismissal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating on merits, was unreasonable and unjustified. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for disposal on merits.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, considering the lack of representation before the NFAC and the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte dismissal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating on merits, was unreasonable and unjustified. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for disposal on merits.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte dismissal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating on merits, was unreasonable and unjustified. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for disposal on merits.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals, stating the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was covered by the jurisdictional High Court's order. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals, stating the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was covered by the jurisdictional High Court's order. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals, stating the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was covered by the jurisdictional High Court's order. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's revisionary order was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer had conducted an enquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation. The Principal CIT failed to point out specific infirmities in the assessment order, making generalized allegations.
The Tribunal found that there was a miscommunication between the auditor and the assessee, constituting a reasonable cause for the delay. The delay in filing Form No. 10B was condoned.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide necessary details before the lower authorities, a final opportunity should be granted to justify the expenses. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to comply with the mandatory audit requirement under Section 44AB and the incorrect claim of partner remuneration deduction under Section 44AD rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The revisionary order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since no assessment was pending for the assessment year and no incriminating material was found during the search, no addition could be made under section 153A. The AO was at liberty to take recourse to other legal provisions if permissible.
The Tribunal held that since no assessment was pending for the assessment year and no incriminating material was found during the search, no addition could be made under section 153A. The AO was at liberty to take recourse to other legal provisions if permissible.