Loading ITAT cases…
162 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The tribunal permitted the assessee-trusts to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were time-barred as the escaped income of Rs. 15,50,000/- was below the Rs. 50,00,000/- threshold required for reassessment after three years under Section 149(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty order was also quashed.
The tribunal permitted the assessee-trusts to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) is directed to re-examine the application after considering all supporting documents and explanations to be furnished by the assessee.
The tribunal permitted the assessee-trusts to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were time-barred as the escaped income of Rs. 15,50,000/- was below the Rs. 50,00,000/- threshold required for reassessment after three years under Section 149(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty order was also quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, noting that the application was rejected without adjudication on merits, restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary documents and cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-examine the issue afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice, noting that the lower authorities' orders were ex parte. A cost of ₹2,500 was imposed on the assessee for negligent conduct.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) to re-examine the issue after considering modified object clauses and supporting documents to be provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal, following a previous similar judgment, agreed to restrict the addition to 10% of the undisclosed income, i.e., ₹1,00,100, and directed it to be taxed under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) is directed to re-examine the application after providing an opportunity to the assessee to submit all necessary documents.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The tribunal found that the rejection was not sustainable and restored the matters to the CIT (Exemption). The CIT was directed to re-examine the applications after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and submit all relevant documents.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case and furnish documents. A cost of ₹2,500 was imposed on the assessee for its negligent conduct.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit necessary documents, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The tribunal permitted the assessee-trusts to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty proceedings also needed to be reconsidered. The penalty issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's submission of having amended the trust objects, restored the matter to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, restored the matters to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-examine the issues after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish supporting documents.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matters to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-examine the issues afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish supporting documents.
The tribunal permitted the assessee-trusts to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to examine and initiate penalty proceedings under Sections 271F and 271(1)(c) made the assessment order erroneous. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263.
The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.