ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — July 2020

The Tribunal held that the delayed filing of Form 10 during assessment proceedings is a curable irregularity and does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2). Discrepancies in figures between Form 10B and Form 10 were also explained and deemed not consequential.

The Tribunal held that the delayed filing of Form 10 during assessment proceedings is a curable irregularity and does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2). Discrepancies in figures between Form 10B and Form 10 were also explained and deemed not consequential.

The Tribunal held that the delayed filing of Form 10 during assessment proceedings is a curable irregularity and does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2). Discrepancies in figures between Form 10B and Form 10 were also explained and deemed not consequential.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without establishing proper service of notices on the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the case was set aside to the AO for a fresh adjudication.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and fulfilled the requirements.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee had opted to settle the tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

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

The tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for settlement of the tax dispute.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

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

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that registration can be granted to both charitable and religious institutions. The Tribunal found that the trust's objects included charitable activities like running a gaushala, Sanskrit school, dispensaries, and providing free food ('bhandara'), justifying the grant of registration.

The tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

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 tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee availing the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the issuance of Form 3 by the tax authorities.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid on the loan raised against FDs was incurred to preserve the income-earning apparatus and avoid penalties for premature encashment. Therefore, it was considered an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the factual substratum of the case and the statutory provisions of law. The Tribunal noted that the agreements for sale of land, the source of the cash credit, were entered into with individuals who were strangers to the assessees, and several circumstances raised doubts about the authenticity of these transactions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of HUF eligibility for Section 54B deduction for AY 2012-13 was debatable. Therefore, the AO could not withdraw the deduction through a Section 154 rectification order, as it requires a mistake apparent from the record, not a change of opinion on a debatable issue.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantiating service of notices. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the creditworthiness of the creditors for unsecured loans and the source of funds for capital introduction, particularly from M/s Euro Steels. Therefore, additions related to these were deleted.

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not recorded any submissions from the assessee's counsel and that the assessee was entitled to a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.