Loading ITAT cases…
208 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that procedural provisions should not defeat substantive rights and that the delay in filing the application should be condoned. The matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh examination on merits.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application without providing a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant another opportunity to the assessee to make compliance, subject to payment of cost, and thereafter re-decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application by providing only one opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication to allow the assessee a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical and procedural defect without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal emphasized that principles of natural justice were violated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, as only one opportunity was granted and proper service of notice was questionable. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application with only one opportunity violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. The tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessee and that restoring the matters would not prejudice the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application after only one opportunity violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application with only one opportunity for hearing violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided a more effective opportunity to the assessee, adhering to principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside to allow the assessee to furnish necessary documents and explanations.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since only one opportunity was granted, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS, 2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B), following previous ITAT decisions. The AO was directed to grant full exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the rejection orders were passed in violation of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided. It also noted that selecting the wrong clause/code is a procedural mistake, not a substantive defect, especially given recent changes in the law.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications was primarily due to non-compliance, but the assessee was given insufficient opportunities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the grant of 80G approval is consequential to 12A/12AB registration. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the 80G application after considering the outcome of the pending 12A/12AB application.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application with only one opportunity violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications was primarily due to non-compliance, but the assessee was given insufficient opportunities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a proper and effective opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection orders were passed in violation of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided. It also noted that selecting the wrong clause/code is a procedural mistake, not a substantive defect, especially given recent changes in the law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a proper and effective opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application by providing only one opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication to allow the assessee a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application after only one opportunity violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided a more effective opportunity to the assessee, adhering to principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside to allow the assessee to furnish necessary documents and explanations.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS, 2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B), following previous ITAT decisions. The AO was directed to grant full exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, as only one opportunity was granted and proper service of notice was questionable. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided more than one opportunity to the assessee to comply with the requirements, citing principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application based on only one opportunity granted to the assessee. The principles of natural justice require a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an adverse decision is taken.
The Tribunal held that Form 10-IE is not mandatory for opting into the new tax regime when income is from salary and other sources, not business or profession. The assessee had validly exercised the option in the revised return.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it. It held that since both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence and submissions. The AO was directed to afford the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to pass fresh orders.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The tribunal also noted the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-service of notices at the correct email address.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause, considering the assessee was residing abroad and unaware of the proceedings. The quantum appeal was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The ITAT condoned the delays in filing appeals at both levels, citing sufficient cause and a justice-oriented approach. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the appeal had become infructuous. This infructuousness arose from the finding in the CIT(A)'s order dated 26-02-2025, which noted that the Assessing Officer's (AO) order dated 24-03-2022 had merged with a subsequent AO's order dated 10-03-2024. The assessee further stated that the appeal was filed erroneously. Since the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal, the Tribunal permitted it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire appeal was disposed of based on the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause, considering the assessee was residing abroad and unaware of the proceedings. The quantum appeal was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided confirmations from relatives and explained the source of cash deposits, including his own cash from earlier withdrawals. These documents were ignored by the lower authorities, making the addition unjustified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause, considering the assessee was residing abroad and unaware of the proceedings. The quantum appeal was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence and submissions. The AO was directed to afford the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to pass fresh orders.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence and submissions. The AO was directed to afford the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to pass fresh orders.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence and submissions. The AO was directed to afford the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to pass fresh orders.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made on an ad-hoc or estimated basis. Following the decisions of co-ordinate benches with identical facts, the penalty was directed to be deleted.