Loading ITAT cases…
90 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by not referring the valuation of the land to the DVO as requested by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the cost of acquisition was not reduced from the sale consideration, which is mandatory.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) issued notices, but the assessee failed to comply, leading to an ex-parte decision. In the interest of justice, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de novo adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal, following previous decisions, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 for AY 2013-14 was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must adjudicate all grounds of appeal. Since the legal grounds were not adjudicated, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was remitted for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must adjudicate all grounds of appeal. Since the legal grounds were not adjudicated, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was remitted for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds regarding the validity of the notice under section 148 and the reassessment proceedings. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following precedent, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to appear and represent the case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law and legally unsustainable because relevant information and documents used in the assessment order were not shared with the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271D can only be sustained if there is a satisfaction recorded in the assessment order for its initiation. In the absence of such satisfaction, a separate show-cause notice and penalty order are not permissible, as it amounts to double jeopardy.
The Tribunal found the delay condonation petition before the CIT(A) unsatisfactory. However, considering the assessee's representative's statement to provide further reasons, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's repeated non-compliance, even after a final opportunity, demonstrated a willful disregard for the legal process and an abandonment of the case. For one assessment year, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication with a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) failed to properly examine the assessee's explanation for the delay and did not exercise its discretionary power judiciously. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present its case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's repeated non-compliance, even after a final opportunity, demonstrated a willful disregard for the legal process and an abandonment of the case. For one assessment year, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication with a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals) that the addition made under Section 143(1) was unjustified. Since the contingent liability was not debited to the profit and loss account nor claimed as an expenditure, it did not constitute an 'incorrect claim' for adjustment under summary processing.
The Tribunal held that in cases of ex-parte orders due to non-compliance, principles of natural justice require the matter to be remanded. The CIT(Appeals) must provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's repeated non-compliance, even after a final opportunity, demonstrated a willful disregard for the legal process and an abandonment of the case. For one assessment year, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication with a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate all grounds of appeal, particularly the jurisdictional issue regarding the transfer of the case. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the right to appeal should be viewed liberally and that the CIT(A) did not sufficiently demonstrate the delay was deliberate. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay condonation petition and decide the appeal afresh.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not comply with the notices and failed to provide explanations regarding the source and genuineness of the deposit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide the appeal on merits with a reasoned order and cannot dismiss it solely for non-prosecution. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back to its file. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to wait for the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on similar issues concerning rice millers and then adjudicate the case afresh.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not comply with the notices and failed to provide explanations regarding the source and genuineness of the deposit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to comply and present the case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay was due to gross negligence and a casual approach by the assessee. The explanation provided for the delay was impractical and unfeasible, and the law of limitation must be complied with.
The Tribunal held that since the issue of bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to wait for the High Court's decision and then adjudicate the case denovo.
The Tribunal held that since the issue of bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to wait for the High Court's decision and then adjudicate the case denovo.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals), stating that the inordinate delay of over 3 years was due to the assessee's negligence and lack of bonafides. Condonation of such delay is not a matter of right and cannot be granted as an act of generosity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC cannot dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, citing High Court precedents. The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remanded, the penalty appeal should also be remanded to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay was due to gross negligence and a casual approach by the assessee. The explanation provided for the delay was impractical and unfeasible, and the law of limitation must be complied with.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., held that employee's contributions not deposited by the statutory due dates are not deductible. However, due to the assessee's non-compliance leading to ex-parte orders at the CIT(A) level, the matters were remanded for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter was remanded back for denovo adjudication, providing the assessee with one final opportunity to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was time-barred as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Act due to an inordinate delay of 18 months in issuing the show-cause notice after the AO's reference. The Tribunal also noted that the disallowance under Section 69C was beyond the scope of TDS, making the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., held that employee's contributions not deposited by the statutory due dates are not deductible. However, due to the assessee's non-compliance leading to ex-parte orders at the CIT(A) level, the matters were remanded for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., held that employee's contributions not deposited by the statutory due dates are not deductible. However, due to the assessee's non-compliance leading to ex-parte orders at the CIT(A) level, the matters were remanded for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., held that employee's contributions not deposited by the statutory due dates are not deductible. However, due to the assessee's non-compliance leading to ex-parte orders at the CIT(A) level, the matters were remanded for de novo adjudication.