ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — May 2021

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made an application for approval of the gratuity fund in 1985, and the department's delay in processing it should not deny the assessee the benefit. The primary intention of Section 36(1)(v) is that the employer should not have control over the fund, which was satisfied as the fund was managed by LIC.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Mr. Tim and Mr. Matt were employees of the AE, not the assessee. Therefore, their actions in signing purchase agreements on behalf of the AE did not establish an agency PE for the assessee in India. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide tangible material to disprove the agricultural use of the land. It also noted that the provisions of Section 54B do not require the assessee to personally carry out agricultural operations.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was clarified that if the assessee fails to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons, they can seek restoration of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's agricultural income was considered, the amount invested in insurance policies was disproportionate. However, it allowed a deduction for household expenses, reducing the confirmed addition.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's request to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme's benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek restoration if they fail to avail the scheme for bona fide reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to pursue the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed 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 bona fide reasons.

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

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bona fide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits were not availed.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. It also noted that the assessees could seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal treated all the appeals as dismissed as being withdrawn. This was based on the assessees' written requests to avail the benefits of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue's no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits were not availed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of charitable status and exemption under section 11 had attained finality, having been consistently accepted by the department for over 20 years and upheld up to the Supreme Court. The principle of consistency was applied.

The Tribunal held that the issue of charitable status and exemption under section 11 had attained finality, having been consistently accepted by the department for over 20 years and upheld up to the Supreme Court. The principle of consistency was applied.

The Tribunal held that the issue of charitable status and exemption under section 11 had attained finality, having been consistently accepted by the department for over 20 years and upheld up to the Supreme Court. The principle of consistency was applied.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, noting that their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were approved. The assessees were granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications if any issues remained unresolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence of registration under section 12AA. However, since the registration order was not presented before the CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the issue back for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that MAT credit should be computed inclusive of surcharge and education cess, following various judicial pronouncements. The exclusion of surcharge and cess by the lower authorities was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to pursue the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration of appeals if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. Since the expenditure was capitalized and not claimed as a deduction, there was no prejudice to the revenue, and the Pr.CIT failed to consider this crucial aspect.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not justified when the payee has furnished Form 15G, indicating their income does not require TDS. The obligation under Section 194A is discharged for the purpose of Section 40(a)(ia) in such cases.

The ITAT allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to seek restoration if the VSV benefit could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was clarified that if the assessees fail to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons, they can seek restoration of the appeals.

The tribunal decided that the disallowance for delayed deposit of PF/ESI contributions was justified based on jurisdictional High Court precedent. However, regarding the suppressed revenue, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry to ascertain the real recipient of the income.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of provisions for expenses, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior year. The ground related to employee's ESI contribution was dismissed as against the assessee.

The tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to proceed with the matter. Based on this, the tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that documents were provided. It directed the CIT(Exemption) to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the documents already filed and any further documents the assessee might submit.

The Tribunal held that if the quantum of income is deleted, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) becomes infructuous as the penalty is determined based on the quantum. Therefore, the penalty appeals are dismissed.

The Tribunal held that if the quantum of income is deleted, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) becomes infructuous as the penalty is determined based on the quantum. Therefore, the penalty appeals are dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence and that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on payments made to overseas agents for services rendered outside India, relying on Supreme Court judgments. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the Section 14A issue by following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. For the Section 244A interest issue, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) was justified in rejecting the application as the assessee failed to furnish necessary documents to prove the genuineness of its activities and creation. The CIT had sought extensive details to satisfy himself about these aspects.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme provisions permit such withdrawal. The assessee was granted liberty to refile if any issues remained unresolved under the scheme.