Loading ITAT cases…
68 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the 91-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle that technicalities should not bar adjudication on merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on the remaining grounds.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to frame points of determination and provide a detailed discussion as required by law. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider adjournment petitions and did not provide a detailed adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the issue.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter to the CIT's file. The CIT was directed to pass a fresh order after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case and adduce fresh evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent material to prove the creditworthiness of the companies subscribing to its shares and the genuineness of the transaction. The addition made under Section 68 was upheld.
The Tribunal affirmed the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs as unexplained income. The assessee failed to provide evidence to explain the source of these remaining cash deposits, despite partial relief granted by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the expenditure for improvement was incurred by him. Bills in the name of a separate entity, even with a self-serving declaration, were not considered proof of the assessee's expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(E) rejecting the applications. The assessee's failure to furnish required details and prove the genuineness of the trust and its activities led to the dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(E) rejecting the applications. The assessee's failure to furnish required details and prove the genuineness of the trust and its activities led to the dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted partial evidence and additional evidence before it. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that while Section 43B requires actual payment of statutory dues by the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) (including extended due dates), the NFAC had not verified the exact amount of GST discharged by the extended due date. Therefore, the matter was remanded.
The tribunal decided to substitute the words 'u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961' with 'u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961'. The rest of the original order remains unchanged.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Act is a welfare legislation and that the assessee should be given one final opportunity to present their case with supporting documents. The order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Act is a welfare legislation and that the assessee should be given a final opportunity to present their case on merits. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case with full assistance.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to consider the position of law and pass an order in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that Income Tax laws are welfare legislations and granted the assessee one more opportunity to rectify the defects. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh determination. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case and lead fresh evidence.