Loading ITAT cases…
112 orders · Page 3 of 3
The tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection was unjustified as the assessee was not given a reasonable and effective opportunity to present its case and evidence. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide necessary records and evidence to substantiate their claim that the payees had offered the income to tax. The assessees' contention was rejected for want of corresponding evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide necessary records and evidence to substantiate their claim that the payees had offered the income to tax. The assessees' contention was rejected for want of corresponding evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s reasoning regarding the Trust Deed authentication was legally flawed. It also noted that the assessee had provided a paper book with evidence of activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s reasoning regarding the Trust Deed authentication was legally flawed. It also noted that the assessee had provided a paper book with evidence of activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the first proviso to Section 43CA, which provides relief when the stamp duty value does not exceed 105% of the consideration, is retrospective. Regarding the TDS disallowance, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not consider fresh evidence and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal afresh after considering the written submissions and allowing further opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applications by the CIT(E) was unjustified as the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to produce documents and refute the reasons for rejection. The principle of natural justice was violated.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applications by the CIT(E) was unjustified as the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to produce documents and refute the reasons for rejection. The principle of natural justice was violated.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to inquire into the inclusion of scrap sale in the total sales constituted a non-application of mind, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that if the tax liability is subsequently paid, an appeal dismissed for violation of Section 249(4) gets revived. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to consider it after the finality of the assessee's application for 12AB registration. This was done without commenting on the merits of the case.