Loading ITAT cases…
80 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of natural justice. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to be decided on merits, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to file some evidence and, to uphold natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was ex parte and the assessee had not furnished sufficient details or documentary evidence. However, to ensure fair play and provide an opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits with cogent evidence, despite opportunities. Merely declaring income and paying tax is not sufficient to prove the validity of the source.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not in a position to file some evidence and, to ensure natural justice, decided to provide one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 104 days, finding the reason for delay to be bona fide and beyond the assessee's control. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of natural justice and the need to provide the assessee with another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of natural justice and the need to provide the assessee with another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of natural justice and the need to provide the assessee with another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of natural justice and the circumstances explained by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of natural justice and the need to provide the assessee with another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of natural justice and the need to provide the assessee with another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause for not complying with the statutory requirement of getting its accounts audited and filing the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was rightly levied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of natural justice. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to be decided on merits, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of natural justice. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to be decided on merits, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not in a position to file some evidence before the CIT(Appeals) and, to ensure natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's (AO) original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it accepted the assessee's return despite reopening the case for specific reasons. The PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263, and the assessee was directed to substantiate its case before the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the tax should be levied on real income and that the assessee had incurred a loss. Given the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the current appeal against the OGE was not maintainable as it was a duplicitous appeal against the consequential order of the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the right to appeal is statutory and must be exercised within the prescribed time. Since the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the right to appeal is statutory and must be exercised within the prescribed time. Since the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the inability to furnish documents rendered the transaction non-genuine. The assessee's failure to provide evidence despite opportunities led to the dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the inability to furnish documents rendered the transaction non-genuine. The assessee's failure to provide evidence despite opportunities led to the dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for disposal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interests of justice, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present supporting documents.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing on time. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing to ensure natural justice.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing on time. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A), treating the LTCG as unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of the share transactions.
The Tribunal found that there was no proper compliance before the AO and CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo reassessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not in a position to file all necessary evidence before the CIT(Appeals). To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 130 days, citing the principle of natural justice and the assessee's claim of ignorance of the assessment order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits and that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh, ensuring the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the salary increases to specified persons were excessively high and not justified. The payments were considered to be for the benefit of specified persons, thus not eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal noted that the AO assessed LTCG due to the assessee's failure to produce documentary evidence, and the CIT(A) also held the assessee failed to provide proof of being a mere agent. Before the Tribunal, the assessee filed a sale deed and power of attorney establishing that the assessee was an agent of the owner, Shri Chandra Prakash, and not the real owner. The Tribunal acknowledged that Sri Sajindra Singh is not the real owner and Shri Chandra Prakash is the landowner, unless he is a benamidar. It was observed that factual verification is required, especially as the revenue also filed written submissions. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence before the lower authorities. Considering these facts, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the assessee's submissions, peruse the documents filed by the assessee, examine the written submissions of the revenue, and pass a fresh order. The order passed by the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the assessee to upload the provisional/regular registration certificate. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was decided ex-parte at both levels and the assessee's claim regarding actual bank deposits was not examined. Therefore, the assessment was set aside for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted a change in the assessee's stand regarding the source of deposits between the assessment stage and the appeal stage. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), subject to a deposit to the PMNRF. The matter was then remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals before it and before the CIT(A), citing the liberal approach towards condonation of delay with sufficient cause. However, due to non-compliance before the Assessing Officer, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the genuine medical reasons provided. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and lacking in merits, thus restoring the issue for de-novo assessment.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals before it and before the CIT(A), citing the liberal approach towards condonation of delay with sufficient cause. However, due to non-compliance before the Assessing Officer, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the liberal approach required for sufficient cause. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and not decided on merits, thus restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and that not all grounds were decided on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided as sufficient cause. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and that not all grounds were decided on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's medical reasons and age. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the mere execution of a registered JDA does not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if possession and construction are not completed. Therefore, capital gains are not taxable in the year of JDA execution.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was not justified due to insufficient time granted to the assessee to reply to the show cause notice. Additions for low profit, Axis Bank deposits, and insurance commission were deleted as the assessee had provided explanations and evidence.