ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the matter to the DVO as per Section 50C of the Act due to the dispute in valuation. The date of the agreement to sell should be considered for determining the full value of consideration.

The Tribunal held that the gains on sale of shares should be treated as short-term capital gains, not business income. It reasoned that the number of transactions was limited and the assessee maintained separate portfolios for investment and trading.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conduct a proper inquiry into the discrepancies in the assessee's accounts, despite issuing a show-cause notice shortly before passing the assessment order. The AO's failure to adequately investigate these issues rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to a CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme provisions permit such withdrawals. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the installation of high-efficiency boilers eligible for 80% depreciation. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' requests to withdraw their appeals as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, were approved. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and completed the necessary formalities. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn under the scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. As the assessee completed the necessary formalities, the appeal was dismissed in terms of the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to properly adjudicate the claim for depreciation on goodwill. Similarly, the disallowance for employee's contribution was not adequately examined. Both issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted to settle the issue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had completed the necessary formalities. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make additions on grounds different from those recorded for reopening the assessment. Since the original reasons for reopening (F&O losses) were not acted upon, the additions made on the NSEL platform issue were unsustainable.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted to avail the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The tribunal also clarified that if an assessee fails to avail the scheme for valid reasons, they can seek restoration of the appeals.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted to avail the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The tribunal also clarified that if an assessee fails to avail the scheme for valid reasons, they can seek restoration of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of expenditure on grounds of lack of commercial expediency does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty cannot be imposed unless there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which was not established.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It also clarified that if an assessee fails to avail the Vivad se Vishwas scheme for any valid reason, they are free to seek restoration of the original appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, had been approved. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's business inactivity and lack of prejudice to the revenue. The Tribunal also held that the disallowance of interest was unsustainable as the unsecured loans were later held to be bonafide.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, were approved. This was in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. 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, noting that the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, provides for such withdrawals. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to refile if the VSV Scheme benefit could not be availed for valid reasons.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and applications for withdrawal of appeals due to the approval under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The requests for withdrawal were allowed in accordance with the scheme's provisions.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' requests for withdrawal of appeals to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. It was noted that if any issue remained unresolved under the scheme, assessees could file Miscellaneous Applications to recall the order.

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 assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved under the scheme.

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 dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the issue of Section 80P(2)(d) exemption was covered by previous ITAT and High Court decisions in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the disallowance of additional depreciation on milk cans and equipment was also decided in favour of the assessee by prior ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It also stated that if the assessee fails to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons, they can seek restoration of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the commission payments were not taxable in India as the services were rendered and utilized outside India. Therefore, there was no obligation to deduct TDS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was unjustified.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of all appeals. It also granted liberty to the taxpayers to refile their appeals if they failed to avail the scheme for any genuine reason.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of all appeals, considering them as withdrawn. It also granted liberty to the assessees to refile the original appeals if they failed to avail the Vivad se Vishwas scheme due to any genuine reason.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be genuine. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declarations under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessees' request to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were 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, noting that their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 had been approved. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were approved. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of directors' foreign travel expenses, holding that the tours were for business purposes, supported by evidence and past rulings. It also deleted the disallowance of interest expenses on the subsidiary loan, citing commercial expediency and Supreme Court precedent. The assessment of short-term capital gains as business income was also deleted based on consistency.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The tribunal granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits were not availed 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 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.