https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463695 ITAT Bangalore set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication because CIT(A) failed to decide the assessee's grounds on merits except for the Section 50C addition. The tribunal found that CIT(A) erred in confirming AO's additions and disallowances (income from house property, capital gains, Section 80C claim) without proper consideration, describing her approach as negligent. The ITAT upheld the Section 50C issue only to the extent addressed and directed CIT(A) to re-examine, verify and decide all raised grounds afresh on merits. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Sep 2025 10:34:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463695 ITAT Bangalore set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication because CIT(A) failed to decide the assessee's grounds on merits except for the Section 50C addition. The tribunal found that CIT(A) erred in confirming AO's additions and disallowances (income from house property, capital gains, Section 80C claim) without proper consideration, describing her approach as negligent. The ITAT upheld the Section 50C issue only to the extent addressed and directed CIT(A) to re-examine, verify and decide all raised grounds afresh on merits. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463695