Loading ITAT cases…
58 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without hearing the assessee and without deciding all grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte, and the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had bona fide reasons for not filing the return on time and there was no concealment or tax evasion. Following judicial precedents, the penalty imposed under Section 270A was deleted.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. To ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a hearing.
The tribunal noted that the assessee claimed cash deposits were for onward payment to wholesalers but failed to provide substantiating evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the assessee claimed cash deposits were for onward payment to wholesalers but failed to provide substantiating evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders, and the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings on certain business expenses, upholding the AO's order. For an issue regarding unaccounted cash receipt versus expenditure, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for determination of the true nature of the transaction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings on certain business expenses, upholding the AO's order. For an issue regarding unaccounted cash receipt versus expenditure, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for determination of the true nature of the transaction.
The Tribunal found contradictions in the CIT(A)'s order and noted the enhancement of income without proper notice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the issue was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings on certain business expenses, upholding the AO's order. For an issue regarding unaccounted cash receipt versus expenditure, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for determination of the true nature of the transaction.
The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte as the assessee did not participate. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the orders of the lower authorities were ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds on merits, including violation of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 441 days in filing the quantum appeal before the CIT(A), citing the liberal approach to delay condonation as per Supreme Court judgments. The quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were both remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 441 days in filing the quantum appeal before the CIT(A), citing the liberal approach to delay condonation as per Supreme Court judgments. The quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were both remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 166 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessment order was passed under Section 144, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings on certain business expenses, upholding the AO's order. For an issue regarding unaccounted cash receipt versus expenditure, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for determination of the true nature of the transaction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings on certain business expenses, upholding the AO's order. For an issue regarding unaccounted cash receipt versus expenditure, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for determination of the true nature of the transaction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings on certain business expenses, upholding the AO's order. For an issue regarding unaccounted cash receipt versus expenditure, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for determination of the true nature of the transaction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings on certain business expenses, upholding the AO's order. For an issue regarding unaccounted cash receipt versus expenditure, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for determination of the true nature of the transaction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings on certain business expenses, upholding the AO's order. For an issue regarding unaccounted cash receipt versus expenditure, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for determination of the true nature of the transaction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings on certain business expenses, upholding the AO's order. For an issue regarding unaccounted cash receipt versus expenditure, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for determination of the true nature of the transaction.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and without deciding all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that both the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and that the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds on merit. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds on merits and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, directing the AO to provide an opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and not all grounds were decided on merits, the tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to sufficient cause and the interest of substantial justice. The Tribunal also noted that both the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and that the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits.
The ITAT condoned the 46-day delay in filing the appeal before it. However, it restored the first appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file a proper application and affidavit explaining the delay before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officers in Patna lacked territorial jurisdiction to issue notices and pass assessment orders as the assessee's business and registered address were in Kolkata. The assessment orders were consequently quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officers in Patna lacked territorial jurisdiction to issue notices and pass assessment orders as the assessee's business and registered address were in Kolkata. The assessment orders were consequently quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the property appeared to be both commercial and residential, but the exact proportion was unclear. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for a detailed determination of the property's nature and extent of commercial use.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that the assessee's reasons for the delay were reasonable. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, who files return under Section 44AD and does not maintain regular books of account, could not adequately explain the source of the entire cash deposit. However, considering the assessee's total receipts and income declared, the Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's prayer and in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with effective opportunities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issue of the addition to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all supporting documents and be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the 4-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering it a minor delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the AO may have made a double addition by including demonetisation cash deposits in total credits and also adding them separately under Section 68. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to provide substantiating documents and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CPC had treated gross receipts as income without considering expenditure.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea of not receiving notices and the interest of justice, decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide supporting documents for their claims.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CPC had treated gross receipts as income without considering expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CPC had treated gross receipts as income without considering expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void-ab-initio as the AO failed to obtain mandatory approval before issuing the notice under Section 148. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal noted that the documents furnished by the assessee were not properly appreciated by the lower authorities. The assessee's counsel also failed to segregate the sources of deposits and file a cash flow statement. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to represent the case before the AO and CIT(A). Considering the assessee's plea for another chance and the lack of serious objection from the revenue, the matter was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted another opportunity to submit its justifications.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted another opportunity to submit its justifications.