ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — June 2020

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee under the Tripartite Agreement were in the nature of grants from the government, not capital gains. The initial agreement was dated 30/04/2002, and a supplementary agreement increasing expected revenue to Rs. 420 Crores was dated 01/07/2011. The second supplementary agreement did not increase expected revenue. Even on an accrual basis, grants did not accrue to the assessee in the impugned year (2013-14). On a receipt basis, all amounts were received in preceding years, except for Rs. 30 Crores settled under the second supplementary agreement on 07/08/2012, which was to be paid to the state government for funding health projects, and for which the assessee had provided a utilization certificate. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding this amount being applied for charitable purposes. Therefore, no amount was taxable in the impugned year, either on receipt or accrual basis. Consequently, the issue of taxability of unutilized capital gains under Section 11 was rendered irrelevant. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the mere non-maintenance of a stock register, especially for a business dealing with numerous small items, is not sufficient grounds for rejecting books of account. Similarly, an incorrect method of stock valuation does not automatically render the books unreliable, and the correct method should be applied instead.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is triggered in the year of issue/allotment of shares, not the year of receipt of application money. The AO rightly applied the section in the impugned year of share issue.

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to be decided afresh. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing and to examine all necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee under the Tripartite Agreement were in the nature of grants from the government, not capital gains. The initial agreement was dated 30/04/2002, and a supplementary agreement increasing expected revenue to Rs. 420 Crores was dated 01/07/2011. The second supplementary agreement did not increase expected revenue. Even on an accrual basis, grants did not accrue to the assessee in the impugned year (2013-14). On a receipt basis, all amounts were received in preceding years, except for Rs. 30 Crores settled under the second supplementary agreement on 07/08/2012, which was to be paid to the state government for funding health projects, and for which the assessee had provided a utilization certificate. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding this amount being applied for charitable purposes. Therefore, no amount was taxable in the impugned year, either on receipt or accrual basis. Consequently, the issue of taxability of unutilized capital gains under Section 11 was rendered irrelevant. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The tribunal noted that the revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal due to the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee intended to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020'. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to ensure full participation in the proceedings.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal due to the application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had furnished the necessary certificates. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance on account of personal use of vehicle expenses can be made in the case of a company assessee on an ad-hoc basis, citing precedent. The past history of the assessee also favored no such disallowance.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the assessees had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had obtained the necessary certificates. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had furnished the necessary certificates. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had furnished the necessary certificates. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proof of notice service. Upholding the principle of 'audi alteram partem', the case was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal, and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal, and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal, and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The parties had also agreed to be bound by the outcome of a Supreme Court decision on similar issues.