ITAT Bangalore Judgments — June 2020

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would withdraw the appeals in due course. Since the necessary applications were filed, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for an adjustment for capacity under-utilization. However, since the actual capacity utilization data of comparable companies was not available, the issue was restored to the TPO to collect this information and re-compute the adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's inconsistent stands and unexplained delays. Consequently, the appeal before the CIT(A) was rightly dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following the Karnataka High Court's decision on total turnover calculation. For the assessee's appeals, several grounds were allowed in favour of the assessee, while others were dismissed as not arising from the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal held that if expenditure disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) relates to business activity against which Chapter VI-A deductions are claimed, the deduction must be allowed on the enhanced profits. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the notice was returned unserved and, considering the assessee's submission of not receiving the notice, set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The case was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would be withdrawing the appeals in due course. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would be withdrawing the appeals in due course. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would be withdrawing the appeals in due course. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had granted 12AA registration, indicating satisfaction with the assessee's objects. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly examined the 80G application and, following precedent, remanded the issue for fresh consideration.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.