Loading ITAT cases…
162 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that while the initial non-compliance with the first notice warranted a penalty, the subsequent notices were merely reminders. Therefore, penalty for the reminders was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by NFAC prior to the notification date of Section 151A was invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed was without jurisdiction and quashed. As the assessment was quashed, the penalty imposed was also deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistakes of their professional. The matter was then restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the assessee failed to provide necessary documents and evidence, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of their professional. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle that the assessee should not be penalized for the professional's mistake. The matter was then restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of their professional. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's case merited some relief, complete relief could not be granted. It directed the Assessing Officer to make an addition of Rs. 69,955/-, representing a 10% net profit rate on the disputed amount, to account for inconsistencies in evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and present their case. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and present their case. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the need for substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the need for substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.