<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (7) TMI 1294 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775226</link>
    <description>ITAT Pune held that CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. The assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 against an order passed under section 143(1), which was rejected. When the assessee appealed against the section 154 order, CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed it stating the appeal should have been filed against the section 143(1) order instead. The tribunal found both orders were essentially the same and the assessee&#039;s appeal was maintainable. The case involved a contingent liability for disputed sales tax demand that was disclosed in financial statements for information only, with no deduction claimed in profit and loss account. The tribunal relied on precedent from a coordinate bench and held the addition was wrongly made by CPC. The matter was remanded back to CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2025 10:20:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=837712" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1294 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775226</link>
      <description>ITAT Pune held that CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. The assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 against an order passed under section 143(1), which was rejected. When the assessee appealed against the section 154 order, CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed it stating the appeal should have been filed against the section 143(1) order instead. The tribunal found both orders were essentially the same and the assessee&#039;s appeal was maintainable. The case involved a contingent liability for disputed sales tax demand that was disclosed in financial statements for information only, with no deduction claimed in profit and loss account. The tribunal relied on precedent from a coordinate bench and held the addition was wrongly made by CPC. The matter was remanded back to CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>