Loading ITAT cases…
111 orders · Page 3 of 3
The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal because the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000 prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 for filing appeals before the ITAT. The tribunal emphasized that CBDT circulars are binding on the revenue.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a sufficient opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding that the reopening was initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without any new tangible material or failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts. The original assessment had already examined the LTCG, making the reopening a mere change of opinion.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee sufficient opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal condoned the 39-day delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order on merits.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. It then restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence and ensuring a speaking order after providing a fair hearing.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. It then restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence and ensuring a speaking order after providing a fair hearing.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 became infructuous due to the CIT(A) remitting the entire matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable as the cash loan and its source (cash sales) were recorded in the assessee's books of account, which were not rejected by the AO. Making the addition would result in double taxation.