Loading ITAT cases…
117 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it for hearing. Subsequently, upon the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application based on incorrect legal principles. It noted that the assessee had valid registration under Section 12AB and that the provisions of Section 12AB and 80G are overlapping. The Tribunal also referred to a CBDT circular extending due dates for filing Form 10AB.
The Tribunal held that detailed analysis of the bank statement, cash flow, and sale agreements was required, which is not suitable for the current forum. Considering previous AYs where business operations were accepted, the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Bench allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, noting the assessee's interest in settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for restoration if the dispute was not settled.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was interested in withdrawing the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Bench allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied on the basis of additions made under the deeming provisions of Section 50C, not on proven concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions. Following various judicial precedents, the Tribunal found no case for concealment and directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was interested in withdrawing the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Bench allowed the withdrawal of the appeal and granted liberty to apply for restoration if the dispute was not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee himself is interested in withdrawing the appeal and allowed the withdrawal. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Bench allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, noting the assessee's interest in settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for restoration if the dispute was not settled.
The Tribunal observed that the cash withdrawal and deposit pattern, involving gaps and the use of cash instead of bank transfers despite accounts being in the same city, was not convincing. The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation was not satisfactory and confirmed the addition.
The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 148 was based on a 'change of opinion' as the issues were already examined during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's applications for condonation of delay were dismissed. However, to provide substantial justice, the appeals were heard on merits. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide necessary documents and justifications.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's applications for condonation of delay were dismissed. However, to provide substantial justice, the appeals were heard on merits. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide necessary documents and justifications.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's applications for condonation of delay were dismissed. However, to provide substantial justice, the appeals were heard on merits. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide necessary documents and justifications.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's applications for condonation of delay were dismissed. However, to provide substantial justice, the appeals were heard on merits. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide necessary documents and justifications.
The assessee opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had deposited the tax payable. The Department did not object to the withdrawal.