ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — November 2020

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn under the VSV scheme, with liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the appeal could not be adjourned or kept in abeyance simply because a similar matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The assessee's written submission did not have merit.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was finalized under section 143(3) based on details submitted, and the AO noted the compliance, the assessee could not be considered non-cooperative. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was not justifiable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the interest subsidies are capital receipts and should not be treated as income for tax purposes. The issue regarding education cess was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 2(22)(e) were unsustainable as they went beyond the scope of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Furthermore, the approval for reopening under Section 151 was found to be mechanically granted without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed's clause regarding interest on capital/loans was not mandatory, and the assessee's decision not to charge interest from partners was their discretion. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not direct otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed's clause regarding interest on capital/loans was not mandatory, and the assessee's decision not to charge interest from partners was their discretion. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not direct otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed's clause regarding interest on capital/loans was not mandatory, and the assessee's decision not to charge interest from partners was their discretion. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not direct otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed's clause regarding interest on capital/loans was not mandatory, and the assessee's decision not to charge interest from partners was their discretion. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not direct otherwise.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.

The tribunal held that the partnership deed's clause regarding interest on capital/loans was not mandatory, and the assessee's decision not to charge interest from partners was their discretion. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not direct otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed's clause regarding interest on capital/loans was not mandatory, and the assessee's decision not to charge interest from partners was their discretion. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not direct otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed's clause regarding interest on capital/loans was not mandatory, and the assessee's decision not to charge interest from partners was their discretion. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not direct otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed's clause regarding interest on capital/loans was not mandatory, and the assessee's decision not to charge interest from partners was their discretion. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not direct otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed's clause regarding interest on capital/loans was not mandatory, and the assessee's decision not to charge interest from partners was their discretion. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not direct otherwise.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits are not availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) and directed the deletion of the addition. It held that the AO failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity for cross-examination of the key witness and did not conduct sufficient independent inquiries to disprove the genuineness of the share capital.