Loading ITAT cases…
118 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The penalty appeals were also remitted back as they were consequential to the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound to follow the interim directions of the Madras High Court. Non-deduction of tax under such circumstances does not attract the provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
The tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and present evidence. Principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to contest the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The penalty appeals were also remitted back as they were consequential to the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound to follow the interim directions of the Madras High Court. Non-deduction of tax under such circumstances does not attract the provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, deeming it an ex-parte and non-speaking order violating natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the rebate under section 87A even if the income includes STCG taxable under section 111A, as there is no express bar in the relevant sections. The denial by the tax authorities was based on system logic rather than statutory mandate.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte without effective representation. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The penalty appeals were also remitted back as they were consequential to the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for rebate under section 87A even if the total income includes STCG taxable under section 111A, as there is no express bar in the relevant sections. The denial of rebate was based on system-driven logic, not statutory mandate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound to follow the interim directions of the Madras High Court. Non-deduction of tax under such circumstances does not attract the provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The penalty appeals were also remitted back as they were consequential to the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound to follow the interim directions of the Madras High Court. Non-deduction of tax under such circumstances does not attract the provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound to follow the interim directions of the Madras High Court. Non-deduction of tax under such circumstances does not attract the provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound to follow the interim directions of the Madras High Court. Non-deduction of tax under such circumstances does not attract the provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the dismissal was solely on technical grounds without considering the merits.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding stock variations and deductions. The case was remanded for a fresh assessment with proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were inherently connected with the business receipts and not unexplained money. The addition made under Section 69A was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound by interim judicial orders preventing TDS deduction. Subsequent Supreme Court judgments did not retrospectively create a liability for the period the bank complied with court orders.
The tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound by interim judicial orders prohibiting TDS deduction on LTC payments for foreign travel. The subsequent Supreme Court decision did not retrospectively create a liability.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default because it was bound by interim judicial orders preventing TDS deduction on LTC payments for foreign travel. The subsequent Supreme Court judgment did not retrospectively create a liability.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on account of delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default because it was bound by interim judicial orders preventing TDS deduction on LTC payments for foreign travel. The subsequent Supreme Court judgment did not retrospectively create a liability.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on account of delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound by interim judicial orders prohibiting TDS deduction on LTC for foreign travel. Subsequent Supreme Court judgments did not retrospectively impose liability for the period the bank complied with court orders.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default because it was bound by interim judicial orders preventing TDS deduction on LTC payments for foreign travel. The subsequent Supreme Court judgment did not retrospectively create a liability.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound by interim judicial orders which prohibited TDS deduction on LTC payments for foreign travel. The subsequent Supreme Court judgment did not retrospectively create a liability.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound by interim judicial orders preventing TDS deduction on LTC for foreign travel. The subsequent Supreme Court judgment did not retrospectively create a liability.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The AO's remand report was deficient as it did not comment on the merits of the evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in issuing the notice under section 148 and framing the assessment under section 147 without proper justification. The addition of unexplained investment was also questioned.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's explanation lacked full documentary support, cash transactions are customary in this business. Both parties agreed to an ad-hoc estimated addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following previous judgments of the same bench and the jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal held that enhanced compensation, including interest thereon, is part of the compensation and not taxable as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C cannot be applied in cases of distress sales where properties are sold under compulsion. The sale consideration agreed upon under distress reflects the market value and should be accepted.
The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed ex parte and the assessee had only made partial compliance. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed ex parte and the assessee had only made partial compliance. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the interest of substantial justice. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully with the remand proceedings.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and arguments. The AO is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for hearings despite repeated opportunities, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to examine the application afresh after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issues of subsequent registration and correct income computation require examination by the Assessing Officer. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after verifying contentions.
The Tribunal found that the bank account and its transactions were duly disclosed in the audited financial statements and the return filed under the correct PAN. The controversy arose due to the duplicate PAN. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.