Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 14A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not retrospective. Consequently, it does not apply to the assessment years in question. The Tribunal also restored certain issues raised by the assessee back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 14A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not retrospective. Consequently, it does not apply to the assessment years in question. The Tribunal also restored certain issues raised by the assessee back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 14A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not retrospective. Consequently, it does not apply to the assessment years in question. The Tribunal also restored certain issues raised by the assessee back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 3% of the donations, finding that the AO had not sufficiently verified the donors and had made additions based on surmises. The Tribunal also deleted an unexplained addition of Rs. 25,57,790/- as it was not discussed in the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 14A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not retrospective. Consequently, it does not apply to the assessment years in question. The Tribunal also restored certain issues raised by the assessee back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
Given that the assessee opted for the VSVS, both parties agreed that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn and infructuous. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal accordingly, clarifying that the assessee could seek restoration if the issue remains unsettled under the VSVS.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the VSVS scheme, the appeal has become infructuous and is treated as withdrawn. The Revenue is at liberty to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under VSVS.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's representative contended that the assessee's written submissions contained factual aspects requiring verification by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue requested that the issues be restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order. The Tribunal agreed with this submission. Consequently, the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues concerning the additions made in the assessment order were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a de novo order in accordance with the law after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions or disallowances but remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous, recognizing the assessee's participation in the VSVS. The Tribunal also clarified that the Revenue could seek restoration of the appeal if the specific issue in dispute is not resolved under the VSVS.
The Tribunal held that both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer failed to discuss the assessee's submissions and evidence in detail. Without sufficient evidence to contradict the assessee's explanation, the addition of Rs.19,31,000/- could not be sustained.
The Tribunal observed that the penalty was levied on estimated additions without a proper scientific basis. The CIT(A) also failed to address the applicability of Section 270A(6) regarding estimated additions.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the Departmental Representative's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the settlement fails.
The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) which rejected the appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The Tribunal, noting the agreement between the parties that the factual matrix was not clear, restored the issues in dispute back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was to be done after due verification and providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunities by the lower authorities and their submissions/evidences were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). It held that the appellate authority has a legal obligation to adjudicate issues through a speaking order, and non-consideration of the assessee's explanation leads to a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. was followed.
The Tribunal proceeded ex-parte due to the assessee's absence. The CIT(A) had upheld the disallowance of Rs.70,64,782/- on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) and other additions, and also enhanced certain additions. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenged these additions and enhancements.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee should have been vigilant, the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity for being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal observed that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to be carried out after affording due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the claim of ownership by the brother was based on an affidavit filed after a significant delay and lacked credibility. The Tribunal found no supporting evidence for this claim, especially since the Assessing Officer was the same for both individuals.