Loading ITAT cases…
263 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not discharged the burden of proof regarding the sources of credits and other additions. However, considering the assessee's request and in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with liberty to file additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred by making an addition in the final assessment order that was outside the scope of the DRP's directions and the draft assessment order. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify and allow the claim for prepaid tax credit. Consequently, Revised Ground No.2 was allowed, and Revised Ground No.3 was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's transactions were conducted through a registered stock broker on a recognized stock exchange and routed through banking channels, and there was no evidence of direct involvement with promoters. The AO's addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the additional amount received was for interior and finishing work as per customer choice, not for the transfer of immovable property. Therefore, Section 269SS was not violated, and no penalty under Section 271D was leviable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 as the ex-parte assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The direction to frame a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity of being heard was considered appropriate.
The tribunal, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, permitted the assessees to withdraw all their appeals. Consequently, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessees were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, permitted the assessees to withdraw all their appeals. Consequently, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessees were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, permitted the assessees to withdraw all their appeals. Consequently, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessees were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, permitted the assessees to withdraw all their appeals. Consequently, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessees were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the 562-day delay, finding sufficient cause. It remitted the issues of regular registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) back to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, granting the appellant another opportunity to make submissions as it failed to appear before lower authorities.
The tribunal, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, permitted the assessees to withdraw all their appeals. Consequently, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessees were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the DVO's valuation and the purchase price was 4%, which is less than the 5% tolerance limit applicable for Assessment Year 2018-19 as per subsequent amendments and judicial precedents. Therefore, the addition was not maintainable.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal with liberty to revive it if the Final Certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is declined. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.