ITAT Bangalore Judgments — January 2021

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.

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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee 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 penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 was defective. The notice did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, violating principles of natural justice.

The tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 was defective. The notice did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 was defective. The notice did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, violating principles of natural justice.

The tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, following the practice of the Bangalore Benches for such cases. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not properly considered the financial statements and audit reports submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an opportunity to rebut the remand report, violating principles of natural justice regarding the estimated business income. However, the addition for unexplained credits was confirmed due to the failure to provide creditor confirmations.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is required to withdraw the pending appeal after filing the Vivad Se Vishwas application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee would be required to withdraw the appeal as part of the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement process. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the assessee would be moving an application to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the VSVS 2020 scheme. Since no purpose would be served by keeping the appeals pending, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, there is no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeals based on their submission regarding the VSVS 2020 scheme and the receipt of Form 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AY 2010-11 to 2012-13 due to low tax effect. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal restored the issues of helicopter expenses and repairs & maintenance expenses to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AY 2010-11 to 2012-13 due to low tax effect. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal restored the issues of helicopter expenses and repairs & maintenance expenses to the AO for fresh examination.