Loading ITAT cases…
73 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the 2-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to a sufficient cause. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, citing violation of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order. The penalty appeal was also allowed as the additions on which it was based were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) based on the advocate's mistake not being the assessee's fault. The matter was then restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. The delay of 3 days was condoned, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted various documents and evidence regarding agricultural income and cash availability. However, some documents were self-serving, and there was a possibility of revenue leakage. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to make an addition of 10% of the disputed amount, i.e., Rs. 68,000/-, as a partial relief.
The tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Finding that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without affording sufficient opportunity, the Tribunal restored the matter for de novo adjudication.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without affording the assessee sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) based on the advocate's mistake not being the assessee's fault. The matter was then restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were not sufficient and lacked proper approval from the PCIT. Consequently, all additions made during the reassessment were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were not sufficient and lacked proper approval from the PCIT. Consequently, all additions made during the reassessment were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were not sufficient and lacked proper approval from the PCIT. Consequently, all additions made during the reassessment were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that while the 'on money' payment was established, the entire amount should not be taxed as income. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, only the profit element embedded in the 'on money' payment should be added to the income.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte orders violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 60,00,000/-, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were not sufficient and lacked proper approval from the PCIT. Consequently, all additions made during the reassessment were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that while the 'on money' payment was established, the entire amount should not be taxed as income. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, only the profit element embedded in the 'on money' payment should be added to the income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without affording the assessee sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without affording the assessee sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was time-barred as it was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.