Loading ITAT cases…
282 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's explanation as reasonable and not malafide, and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was done because the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without a speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's explanation as reasonable and not malafide, and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was done because the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without a speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of independent inquiry by the AO and the assessee's voluntary offer of income. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1,51,000/- assuming it was from accumulated savings. For the remaining Rs. 7,30,000/-, which was claimed as cash gifts from the husband and son, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication as the supporting documents were filed for the first time.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's age and unfamiliarity with tax procedures. Since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the legal issues raised by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and thus exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the differences in Form 26AS were timing differences and the interest on refund was adjusted without proper intimation. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee is directed to present their case with evidence, and the AO is to decide afresh after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not properly substantiated the sources of cash and time deposits despite opportunities. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to present their case with additional evidence and respond to notices without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the 95-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. The issues on merit were not decided by the CIT(A), leading to a remand.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had previously allowed similar appeals for subsequent assessment years, directing the AO to grant TDS credit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO to follow the previous directions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a justice-oriented approach and relevant Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal restored both the quantum addition and penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable cause for the delay. The issues on merits were not decided by the CIT(A) and were therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all required information without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a justice-oriented approach and relevant Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal restored both the quantum and penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had previously allowed similar appeals for subsequent assessment years, directing the AO to grant TDS credit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO to follow the previous directions.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all required information without further adjournment.
The Tribunal restored the issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a justice-oriented approach and relevant Supreme Court judgments. It also restored both the quantum additions and penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a justice-oriented approach and relevant Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal restored both the quantum addition and penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted a money lending business, making Section 44AB applicable. However, it found that the penalty under Section 271B was wrongly calculated on the entire loan balance instead of the actual interest income.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a subsequent government intimation exempted it from Section 56(2)(viib). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of this exemption.
The Tribunal held that once a valid return claiming loss was filed for AY 2017-18 within the prescribed time, such loss can be carried forward and set off against income in subsequent years, even if the return for the subsequent year was not filed u/s 139(1).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the 'reasonable cause' presented by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issues on merits back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.