The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 148 was invalid as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, affirming the CIT(A)’s order.
ITAT Hyderabad held that an ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) violated section 250(6) as not all grounds were adjudicated. The case was restored for a fresh, reasoned hearing.
ITAT Hyderabad upheld the dismissal of a trust’s appeal as barred by limitation due to a delay of nearly five years. The tribunal emphasized that no reasonable cause was shown to condone the delay under section 249(3).
ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 290-day delay in filing an appeal, accepting that the order was sent to an old email address and the officer’s illness caused genuine hardship.
ITAT Hyderabad sent back the disallowance of Rs. 25.93 crore on pension bond adjustments and Rs. 21.92 crore on pension trust payments for verification due to contradictory claims and ITR reporting errors.
Since the Form 10B was filed along with the return of income and within the due date of filing the return of income, the delay in filing the Form 10B could not be a ground for denial of the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12.
Hyderabad ITAT found reassessment unsustainable where 54F exemption was already examined in earlier scrutiny. As no new evidence emerged, reassessment under Section 147 was declared void.
The ITAT Hyderabad set aside the CIT(A)’s appellate order after finding it contained extensive facts and discussions unrelated to the assessee’s case, signaling non-application of mind. The matter was remanded for a fresh, speaking order after properly appreciating the factual matrix.
The ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 211-day delay in filing an appeal, finding the delay was justified because the NFAC (CIT(A)) sent all crucial notices to incorrect email addresses. The Tribunal restored the appeal for fresh hearing, ruling that the ex parte dismissal violated the principles of natural justice due to improper service of notice.
Hyderabad ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order, deleting an addition for cash deposits during the demonetisation period because the Assessing Officer (AO) ignored 28 debtor confirmations and audited accounts. The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 68 is invalid without rejecting the genuine books of account or verifying the provided evidence of business receipts.
