<?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 (8) TMI 955 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776767</link>
    <description>An ex parte appellate order was found unsustainable because the assessee had not been given a fair and adequate opportunity of hearing, including proper consideration of an adjournment request and supporting explanation. The matter was set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after reasonable hearing. On disallowance of employees&#039; provident fund contribution, the assessee&#039;s explanation of a one-day delay due to EPFO portal non-functioning, together with the EPFO relaxation communication, had not been examined by the first appellate authority, which had relied only on a Supreme Court ruling cited before it. That issue was therefore remitted for fresh consideration rather than finally decided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:38:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=844214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 955 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776767</link>
      <description>An ex parte appellate order was found unsustainable because the assessee had not been given a fair and adequate opportunity of hearing, including proper consideration of an adjournment request and supporting explanation. The matter was set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after reasonable hearing. On disallowance of employees&#039; provident fund contribution, the assessee&#039;s explanation of a one-day delay due to EPFO portal non-functioning, together with the EPFO relaxation communication, had not been examined by the first appellate authority, which had relied only on a Supreme Court ruling cited before it. That issue was therefore remitted for fresh consideration rather than finally decided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776767</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>