ITAT Bangalore Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement fails.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the payment for the property was out of compensation received from BMRCL, which was reflected in the bank account and Form 26AS, and thus not an unexplained investment. The compensation received from BMRCL was also held to be exempt from capital gains tax as per CBDT Circular No. 36/2016.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal found the 12% profit estimation to be on the higher side, considering the nature of the assessee's business and past profit margins. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit at 8% of the total gross receipts.

The Tribunal held that if substantial expansion is carried out within the specified period, the year of expansion becomes the 'initial assessment year', entitling the assessee to 100% deduction for a total period of 10 years. The appeal was allowed based on this interpretation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including invoices and bank statements, which were not formally filed before the lower authorities. It held that procedural technicalities should not obstruct justice and that the evidence was crucial for a proper adjudication.

The Tribunal followed a precedent regarding MAT credit, holding that it should be inclusive of surcharge and cess. The matter was remitted to the AO for recalculation of the MAT credit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission and request, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to move for recall if the Vivad Se Vishwas forms are not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal have been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee would be moving to withdraw the appeal in due course. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that cash medical benefits were reimbursements and not income, thus not requiring TDS. For other payments, the Tribunal found that evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities.