Loading ITAT cases…
73 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated based on seized materials. However, it found that some additions were made without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper verification, particularly those based on retracted statements or presumptive calculations.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated based on seized materials. However, it found that some additions were made without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper verification, particularly those based on retracted statements or presumptive calculations.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the case on merits after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues on merits. The assessee was directed to actively comply with notices and submit all relevant details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issue of disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to produce vouchers exceeding ₹25,000/- for verification.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if there was any exempt income and, if not, to delete the disallowance under Section 14A. The disallowance of interest on delayed statutory dues was confirmed as penal in nature.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illiteracy. The Tribunal found no reason to uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) as the source of cash deposit was not properly explained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an agriculturist and engaged in related businesses, had provided a plausible explanation for the cash deposits. Considering the nature of activities and the quantum of deposits, the authorities below should have accepted the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's illness as a sufficient cause. It was held that both the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without deciding all grounds of appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), subject to a cost payment. The matter was then remanded to the Assessing Officer for detailed deliberation and verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's age and circumstances. It was held 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 Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without deciding all grounds of appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice principles. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal directed the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was instructed to consider this application liberally and decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It noted that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds on merit, thus restoring the issue for de-novo assessment.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 172 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee was a senior citizen and subsequently passed away. The tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found 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 a fresh decision.
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 restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to ascertain the due date for remittance of employee PF/ESI contributions. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.