Loading ITAT cases…
80 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 68 is procedural in nature and the delay in filing it should be condoned, especially when the tax and interest were paid within the stipulated time. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for immunity from penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to maintain books of accounts and get them audited, despite the turnover exceeding the threshold. Considering the low profit margins in the bullion business, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly exercise their powers and that the AO did not have sufficient time to examine documents submitted at the fag end of the assessment. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the AO for in-depth examination.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that to ensure natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present evidence. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the 2-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The ITAT condoned the 2-day delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s orders and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal without examining the merits of the case. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence.
The ITAT condoned the 2-day delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s orders and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the 4-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present evidence to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as confirmed by the CBDT circular. The Revenue's representative could not rebut this fact or show any exceptions applied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. It held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without examining the merits and that the assessee was unable to file some evidence.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh disposal on merits, following the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to be heard, adhering to the principle of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not discuss the issue on merits and allowed the appeal without proper adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to invoke correct sections (like 69B and 115BBE) and initiate penalty proceedings under the appropriate section rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The PCIT's order setting aside the assessment for fresh inquiry was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the AO accepted the assessee was in the coal trading business, Section 44AD should be considered. They directed the AO to compute estimated profit at 10% on cash deposits and 8% on other deposits as business income.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance was based on information apparent from the return and tax audit report, thus falling under section 143(1)(a)(ii). However, it also noted that the entire expenditure was disallowed, which was incorrect. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's medical condition and the interest of justice, decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee is directed to provide cogent documentation to support their claims.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to substantiate the capital with cogent documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's mistaken belief of filing a revision petition. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and substantiate its case.
The Tribunal found that the irrevocability clause could be inferred from the trust deed and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The issue was remanded to the CIT(E) to re-examine the deed and consider the application.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to invoke the correct sections (69B, 69A) and apply Section 115BBE made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's order to revise the assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's medical condition and the interest of justice, decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee is directed to provide cogent documentation to support their claims.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's medical condition and the interest of justice, decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee is directed to provide cogent documentation to support their claims.
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the submission of bills and vouchers for capital assets. To resolve the dispute and ensure a fair decision, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue but remitted it back to the AO for verification. Therefore, the Tribunal also remitted the issue back to the AO for a decision as per law.
The Tribunal held that the issue of TDS on LTC involving foreign travel has been decided by the Supreme Court, ruling against such exemptions. However, the appeal was partly allowed to await the outcome of a pending SLP concerning certain circulars.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii) was not in force at the time of the agreement and that the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement should be considered, especially since the advance was paid via cheque. The addition made by the AO was deemed incorrect.