Tribunal held that CIT(A) deleted bad debt disallowance without verifying Section 36(2) compliance. Case remanded to AO for fresh adjudication after granting assessee fair opportunity.
The ITAT Pune set aside the rejection of ZLS Foundation’s S.12AB charitable registration application, ruling that the CIT(E) must provide a final opportunity to address specific defects (like lack of beneficiary details and community focus), upholding natural justice.
In a case involving unexplained bank deposits, ITAT Agra remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh assessment with due compliance to natural justice after earlier ex-parte orders under Sections 144 and 147.
The ITAT Agra set aside the addition of ₹34.45 crore under Section 41(1) against Ginni Filaments, ruling that the evidence (creditor confirmations, invoices, and payment proof) must first be verified by the AO.
Agra ITAT deleted addition under Section 68, ruling that gifts from sisters (Sharad Maheshwar) were genuine. The Tribunal held the department cannot reject gifts solely because the donor’s tax return was not scrutinized.
The Tribunal sent the case back to the Assessing Officer after finding that documents proving investment sources and expenses were not examined earlier. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication after affording hearing.
Nagpur ITAT remanded Vijay Peshane’s appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh review of addition under Section 6a9A. The assessee claimed miscommunication led to a failure to appear before the appellate authority.
Agra ITAT remands A.Y. 2018-19 bogus sales addition case to CIT(A), holding ex parte dismissal without merits discussion violates Section 250(6) and natural justice.
The ITAT ruled that tax authorities cannot deny the S.115BAB benefit after a detailed S.143(3) scrutiny order confirms the assessee as a manufacturer. The judgment emphasizes procedural consistency, overturning the CPC and CIT(A) orders.
The Tribunal remanded the case for de novo assessment to verify the reporting of cash deposits made during demonetisation under the assessee’s second PAN, citing a lack of proper opportunity for hearing.
