Loading ITAT cases…
58 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that depreciation was claimed in the P&L account and the net profit was accepted. In the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the AO for examination of the depreciation claim.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as the tax involved was below the threshold specified by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. The revenue was granted liberty to seek revival if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, admitting additional evidence. Considering the ex-parte nature of the assessment and the assessee's claim of being a CSP agent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 620 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the reasons provided. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) referred to the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause. The appeal was then taken up for adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was indeed ex-parte and did not decide the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision after providing a proper hearing to the assessee.