The Tribunal ruled that appellate authorities must decide appeals on merits, even if the taxpayer does not appear, reinforcing the mandate of Section 250(6).
The ITAT ruled that appeal limitation must be counted from the date the taxpayer gains knowledge of the order, setting aside dismissal wrongly made on delay grounds.
The ITAT held that professional negligence and continuous medical problems constitute sufficient cause, condoning a 261-day delay and reviving the appeal.
The Tribunal held that a transfer pricing order passed beyond statutory limitation is non est in law. As a result, the assessee ceased to be an eligible assessee under section 144C, making the final assessment beyond limitation and void.
The issue was whether the final order was passed within the statutory timeline after DRP directions. The Tribunal held that delay beyond one month under section 144C(13) renders the order void.
Upholding the appellate authority, the Tribunal confirmed that jurisdiction cannot be assumed casually against a non-searched person. Statutory satisfaction requirements are mandatory, not procedural.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 must follow the faceless mechanism prescribed by the CBDT Scheme, 2022. Issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer vitiated the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that leave encashment received on resignation qualifies for exemption under Section 10(10AA). Subsequent employment in the same year does not bar the relief.
Holding that procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights, the Tribunal restored the appeal. The case was remanded for reconsideration after granting opportunity.
The Tribunal held that once delay in filing the return is condoned under Section 119(2)(b), denial of Section 80P solely for late filing is unsustainable. The deduction was directed to be allowed.
