ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — December 2020

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of the appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of the appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's written request to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee opted to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The assessee is at liberty to seek restoration if they fail to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent inquiry. The AO failed to establish the existence of the alleged higher sale consideration or the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee opted to avail the benefits of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The assessee can seek restoration if they fail to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's written request to avail the benefits of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's written request. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn because the assessee opted to avail benefits under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The assessee is at liberty to seek restoration if they fail to avail the VSV scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn because the assessee opted to avail benefits under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The assessee is at liberty to seek restoration if they fail to avail the VSV scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's written request. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The ITAT allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the applicability of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which revised monetary thresholds for tax effects. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal is conditional on the assessee successfully availing the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The ITAT allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.

The ITAT allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding the canteen license fees, following a co-ordinate bench's decision that such income was taxable under the head 'income from house property' and not business income. The appeal concerning the reconditioning of buses was not explicitly detailed in the final outcome but implied to be decided in favor of the assessee based on previous years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the assessee's reasons. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) is not applicable as the assessee company was not a shareholder in the company from which the loan was received. Regarding office expenses, the Tribunal found that the associate concern had minimal activity at the premises and restricted the disallowance to 25%.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, were approved. However, it noted that if any issue remained unresolved under the scheme, the assessees could file a miscellaneous application.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the sale of old agricultural land treated as fixed assets should be considered capital gains. The AO's reclassification based solely on the Memorandum of Association was deemed insufficient.

The Tribunal held that the machine was a multi-functional printer and entitled to 60% depreciation, as its photo-stating capability was an added function. The CIT(A) failed to comprehend the true nature of the asset.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme had been approved. The withdrawal was in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.

The Tribunal noted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee PF contributions not deposited by the due date, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. It also upheld the disallowance of consultancy/legal fees under Section 35DD, finding that the expenditure was incurred for amalgamation/merger purposes.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on the membership card was allowable, following its own previous decisions. For one appeal, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation on the membership card, following its own precedent. For one appeal, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to low tax effect, while the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on the membership card was allowable, following its own previous decisions. For one appeal, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own precedents for earlier assessment years. It held that when an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, advances are presumed to be made from such funds. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had earned net positive interest income, making the disallowance inapplicable.