Loading ITAT cases…
64 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal, considering that the quantum appeal was still pending, decided that the penalty appeal should also await the decision on the quantum appeal. The Tribunal then restored the issue of penalty imposition and quantification to the Assessing Officer for a denovo order.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it was not maintainable due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal found the 20% rate for extra gross profit excessive and directed the Assessing Officer to charge it at 10%, granting partial relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee submitted that the dispute was settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. Both parties agreed that the tax effect was below the threshold for filing an appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. It was also clarified that the Revenue could seek restoration of the appeal if the issue was not settled under the VSVS.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to medical and family reasons. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity. Accordingly, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It ruled that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals based on the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was misconceived. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It ruled that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals based on the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was misconceived. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without bringing material to show that the assessee's activities were not in accordance with its educational objects or were not genuine. Relying on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that 'proposed activities' are relevant for registration and that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity. The impugned order was set aside, and the application was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the VSVS scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the dispute was not settled under VSVS.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Designated Authority had issued a certificate. The Tribunal, in view of this, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of Rs. 6,00,000/- being out of past savings is acceptable, considering his financial standing, age, and other sources of income. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- is directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the issue remained unsettled under the scheme.