Loading ITAT cases…
172 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in effect of the Section 263 orders, which were subsequently set aside by the Tribunal, does not survive. Therefore, the appeal challenging this assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order becomes infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in effect of the Section 263 orders, which were subsequently set aside by the Tribunal, does not survive. Therefore, the appeal challenging this assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order becomes infructuous.
The Tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was bad in law, as it did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed void ab-initio.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, which was passed in effect of the Section 263 orders, was rendered invalid as the Section 263 orders themselves were set aside by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in effect of the Section 263 orders, which were subsequently set aside by the Tribunal, does not survive. Therefore, the appeal challenging this assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order becomes infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was bad in law, as it did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed void ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal and Gujarat High Court's decision in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel. The notice issued was considered invalid.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in the proceedings to avoid further ex-parte orders.
The Tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was unjustified as the cash withdrawals were from the assessee's own funds, supported by loan disbursements and agricultural income details. The CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal and Gujarat High Court's decision in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel. The notice issued was considered invalid.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal and Gujarat High Court's decision in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel. The notice issued was considered invalid.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in the proceedings to avoid further ex-parte orders.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in the proceedings to avoid further ex-parte orders.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal and Gujarat High Court's decision in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel. The notice issued was considered invalid.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal and Gujarat High Court's decision in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel. The notice issued was considered invalid.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in the proceedings to avoid further ex-parte orders.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Considering the importance of registration and in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.