ITAT Allahabad Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on figures considered by the AO in its remand report, thus the Revenue's grievance was not substantiated. For the assessee's appeals, certain issues were restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on figures considered by the AO in its remand report, thus the Revenue's grievance was not substantiated. For the assessee's appeals, certain issues were restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided some evidence and explained the delay in submitting complete confirmations due to time constraints. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT had not specifically requested certain documentary evidence for the activities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on figures considered by the AO in its remand report, thus the Revenue's grievance was not substantiated. For the assessee's appeals, certain issues were restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on figures considered by the AO in its remand report, thus the Revenue's grievance was not substantiated. For the assessee's appeals, certain issues were restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) and AO had failed to adjudicate on crucial issues regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings, including the service of notice under Section 148 and the validity of the return filed. The matter was therefore remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit as the income on which TDS was deducted was offered to tax in her hands. Denial of credit solely due to the TDS being deposited in the deceased husband's PAN was unjustified.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme and the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on funds during the construction period and forfeiture of earnest money from contractors are capital receipts inextricably linked to the project setup. These receipts should reduce the cost of the project rather than being taxed as income.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not produced sufficient evidence, such as a stock register, to substantiate its claims regarding expenses and closing stock. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.