Loading ITAT cases…
14 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and their application was approved, the appeal was no longer maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the application was approved. Therefore, the appeal was considered not maintainable.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee ultimately complied with the notices and their explanation was accepted in the quantum appeal, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not imposable. The AO's own order listed dates of compliance, contradicting the basis for the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made an addition of the entire cash deposit without considering withdrawals and the profit element of the business. The matter was set aside for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, noting the prevailing COVID-19 situation and the fact that the protective addition was dependent on the substantive addition. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue solely on the grounds of low tax effect, as per the applicable CBDT circular. The Tribunal clarified that this decision did not comment on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee had filed returns and declared income, the seized material from the search would not constitute incriminating material for reassessment under Section 153C. However, for the year of search and prior years where no returns were filed, the estimation of income was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee had filed returns declaring income, the seized material from the search would not constitute incriminating material for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. However, for years where no return was filed, the seized material was considered valid for assessment.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee had filed returns and declared income, the seized material from the search would not constitute incriminating material for reassessment under Section 153C. However, for the year of search and prior years where no returns were filed, the estimation of income was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee had filed returns and declared income, the seized material from the search would not constitute incriminating material for reassessment under Section 153C. However, for the year of search and prior years where no returns were filed, the estimation of income was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee had filed returns and declared income, the seized material from the search would not constitute incriminating material for reassessment under Section 153C. However, for the year of search and prior years where no returns were filed, the estimation of income was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the contribution of Rs. 72,00,000/- made by the assessee to Roman Catholic Diocese Private Limited (RCD) is not eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the assessee's Memorandum of Association primarily permits activities related to establishing and running hospitals, nursing homes, welfare homes, and rest houses. While RCD's objects may include hospitals, it was found that during the assessment year, RCD was engaged in educational activities and utilized the donation for education, not medical relief. The Tribunal found this act to be ultra vires to the assessee's object clause and not fulfilling the condition of applying income for 'such purposes' as stipulated in Section 11(1)(a). The Tribunal relied on the principle that income must be applied for the purposes for which the trust was established, referencing judgments like J K Charitable Trust and the reasoning in CIT v. Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust No. 2, which, in turn, relied on IRC v. Helen Slater Charitable Trust Limited, emphasizing that the transferor must ensure the money will not be misapplied by the transferee. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to exemption for the donation, and the appeal filed by the assessee fails. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for reopening after four years from the end of the assessment year, when the original assessment was under Section 143(3), the satisfaction of the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner is mandatory. Since only the JCIT's satisfaction was obtained, the reopening was invalid.