The case examined whether an appellate authority could set aside an ex-parte reassessment. The tribunal held that the amended proviso to section 251(1)(a) expressly allows such remand to ensure assessment on merits.
Tribunal held that TDS liability under section 194-IA cannot arise unless Revenue proves that payment was actually made. Mere third-party statements were found insufficient to treat buyer as an assessee in default.
Purchase Date Doubts Not Enough to Deny LTCG Exemption: ITAT Mumbai held that transfer dates shown in share certificates satisfied the statutory holding requirement.
The Tribunal held that deduction under section 80P cannot be allowed without a timely return but restored the matter to enable condonation under the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal set aside the interest disallowance after noting that the underlying loan genuineness issue was already remanded for fresh adjudication, requiring reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.
The appellate order was quashed as the appeal was dismissed solely for non-appearance without examining the grounds or recording reasons. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication in line with statutory requirements.
The Tribunal upheld the statutory bar on late-filed returns but restored the matter to allow the assessee to seek condonation under the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of interest after noting fresh evidence indicating business utilisation of borrowed funds. The matter was remanded for reconsideration with an opportunity to substantiate the claim.
The Tribunal held that exemption under section 11 cannot be denied once the delay in filing Form 10B stands condoned. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify and allow the exemption in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that relief based on additional evidence without obtaining a remand report breaches Rule 46A(3). The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
