Loading ITAT cases…
18 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not on the specific issue raised by the assessee and dealt with other unrelated matters. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the Department's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was sought because a fresh order had been passed, making the current appeal unnecessary and infructuous.
The Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary details, and the CIT(A) was instructed to examine the issues in light of the provided documents, proceeding as per law if the assessee failed to comply.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the validity of the notice u/s 143(2) to the CIT(A) for examination of the service date. The issue regarding the estimation of net profit was also restored to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination of purchase and sale documents.
The Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary details, and the CIT(A) was instructed to examine the issues in light of the provided documents, proceeding as per law if the assessee failed to comply.
The tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee and dismissed the revenue's appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid their taxes. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the request of the assessees.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid their taxes. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the request of the assessees.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid their taxes. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the request of the assessees.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid their taxes. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the request of the assessees.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal and no contrary material was presented. The appeal was dismissed based on the merits considered after hearing the DR.
The Tribunal held that the AO's ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of expenses, including material cost, was not justified without specific material defects. The CIT(A)'s restriction of the disallowance to 1% was found to be reasonable, as was the treatment of business promotion expenses.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. Therefore, the case was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without addressing the legal and factual issues raised. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh decision.