ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — August 2020

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued the relevant certificate.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had availed the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the rent paid was reasonable and comparable to market rates, citing previous years' assessments and other lease agreements. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was not justified.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.

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 assessee applied for withdrawal of the appeal as they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued Form 3. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

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. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that a reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee by the AO and the CIT(A) did not consider the evidence due to a procedural issue. Therefore, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the denial of accumulation benefit for delayed filing of Form 10 was not in accordance with the law, following its previous decisions. However, the issues regarding the treatment of receipts and interest income were decided in favour of the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Both parties agreed to the assessee's prayer.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the submissions of both parties.

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and received the necessary form. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to verify if the NBFCs offered the interest income in their returns and paid due taxes, and if the assessee provides a certificate to that effect.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 201(1) and 40(a)(ia) allow for relief if the recipient has offered the income in their return and paid taxes. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify these contentions and allow the assessee to furnish a certificate.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee regarding subsequent registration under Section 12AA. Considering the peculiar facts and principles of natural justice, the case was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that a father and daughter are relatives under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, and there is no bar to receiving gifts between them. The Tribunal found that the source of the gift was explained and the transaction was through banking channels.

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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to ensure natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated by the first AO were void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction. The subsequent AO's continuation of these void proceedings without independent application of mind and recording of reasons rendered the assessment illegal.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to apply his mind independently to the information received. The incorrect recording of the assessee not filing a return indicated a lack of proper verification, rendering the reopening based on mere suspicion invalid.