Loading ITAT cases…
65 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the appeals were barred by limitation due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. The Tribunal emphasized that negligence and a casual approach by the assessee do not warrant condonation of delay.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to await the High Court's decision on similar cases. The CIT(A)/NFAC will then adjudicate the matter afresh based on the High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on merits. The matter was remanded to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and the assessee had provided satisfactory replies. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on merits. The matter was remanded to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on merits. The matter was remanded to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on merits. The matter was remanded to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on merits. The matter was remanded to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on 'Chaturmas Sewa and General Expense' was indeed religious in nature and exceeded the permissible limit. However, the CIT(E) had incorrectly calculated the 5% threshold by using total expenses instead of 'total income' as the base.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient time for compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the issue of taxability of the entire purchase price versus gross profit and whether 'Vaibhav Garments' was an associated entity. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the approval for the Section 148 notice was obtained from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, which was a statutory requirement. This rendered the reassessment proceedings illegal and void ab initio.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice and the assessee's bonafide reasons for the delay. The tribunal held that the CIT(A) was obligated to decide the appeal on merits and could not dismiss it for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the Vivad Se Vishwas application was not filed for the present appeal. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct requisite inquiries and verification on the issues raised by the PCIT. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.