Loading ITAT cases…
387 orders · Page 1 of 8
The Tribunal set aside the penalty appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This decision was made because the assessee's quantum appeal for the same assessment year had already been remanded for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a return in response to the Section 148 notice. This procedural lapse rendered the assessment order a nullity.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS 2019 are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B). The assessees are directed to file revised computations of income to claim this exemption.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to sufficient cause, citing Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal, following a previous decision, restored the disputed issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documentation.
The Tribunal, following a previous decision, restored the disputed issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documentation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS 2019 are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B). The assessees are directed to file revised computations of income to claim this exemption.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order, directing it to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The delay was attributed to the assessee's lack of procedural awareness and the Covid period.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action without considering the factual aspects and material evidence. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) or AO for fresh adjudication, directing them to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary details. The grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to appear and present their case with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS 2019 are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B). The assessees are directed to file revised computations of income to claim this exemption.
The Tribunal restored the disputed issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication on merits, following a similar precedent. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned orders. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear and present their case without adjournment.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, adopting a justice-oriented approach. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order, directing it to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The delay was attributed to the assessee's lack of procedural awareness and the Covid period.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) or AO for fresh adjudication, directing them to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary details. The grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive hearing notices from the CIT(A) due to an incorrect email address. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned orders. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, adopting a justice-oriented approach. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not address the merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but also considered that there could be reasons beyond their control. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the six-year period of limitation from the end of the relevant assessment year, making the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the additions made were liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal, following a previous decision, restored the disputed issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documentation.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a return in response to the Section 148 notice. This procedural lapse rendered the assessment order a nullity.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) failed to consider uploaded documents, and the Tribunal agreed to provide a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but also considered that there could be reasons beyond their control. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee before passing the assessment order. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee failed to prove the direct nexus between earning income and the claimed deduction with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay, and the assessee also filed the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay and did not appear for hearings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned orders. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS 2019 are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B). The assessees are directed to file revised computations of income to claim this exemption.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis of the penalty, was set aside by a previous Tribunal order for denovo adjudication, the penalty cannot be sustained. The penalty order was consequently set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It remitted the entire disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details. The assessee was directed to comply without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(Exemption) could pass an appropriate order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and provided the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate the charitable nature of its activities before the CIT(Exemption). The impugned order was set aside for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and, with no objection from the revenue, treated the appeal as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional and there was sufficient cause. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal in limine due to the inordinate delay. The assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause for the delay, demonstrating negligence and lack of due diligence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and did not follow the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional and there was sufficient cause. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee did not appear or make any submissions, the Tribunal could not draw any inferences in their favor and dismissed the appeals.