ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — October 2020

The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily surrendered the income and paid the taxes before any discrepancy was pointed out by the department, the penalty was not justified. The penalty was deleted.

The assessee's counsel submitted an application to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted 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 as the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's successful application under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, which was acknowledged by the department.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued a certificate. Therefore, the appeal was to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued a certificate. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT exercised revisionary powers arbitrarily, without due application of mind and in violation of natural justice. The PCIT's findings were based on incorrect interpretation of documents and a vague show-cause notice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order exparte without substantiating the service of hearing notices on the assessee. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction for reopening the assessment was borrowed and not independently formed, as the AO merely relied on the information received without independent verification. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's successful application under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

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

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and receiving a certificate from the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's application for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Since the assessee had availed the scheme and the department did not object, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and receiving a certificate from the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify if the facts are identical to a previous case where similar issues were decided. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee can demonstrate that the major portion of sale proceeds were received in a subsequent year, the condition of depositing sale proceeds in a Capital Gains account would not be applicable, and the assessee might be eligible for deduction under Section 54B.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and consider the assessee's evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of 18% interest on unsecured loans as the market rate was justified and allowable. The factual contentions of the assessee were not rebutted by the Revenue, and the CIT(A) had upheld the disallowance without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was against the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. The case was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 275 of the Act. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds to cover the advances made. Therefore, the presumption is that the advances were made out of own funds, and no disallowance under Section 36(i)(iii) is warranted.

The Tribunal restricted the disallowance on wages to Rs. 1 lac, reduced the disallowance on car expenses to 25% of the AO's disallowance, and restored the issue of estimated rental income to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that demarcation/survey expenses, salaries for transferred employees, contribution to Delhi Metro, and sales tax payments were all allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal found that these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the principle of natural justice ('audi alteram partem') mandates that no one should be condemned unheard. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that if the additions on which a penalty is levied are subsequently deleted, then the penalty cannot survive. Following the Supreme Court's decision in K.C. Builders, the penalty was deleted.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained the necessary certificate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be unintentional. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for adjudication afresh due to the CIT(A) having discussed facts of another case and not confronting evidence to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified because the AO did not obtain the mandatory approval from the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, as the minimum penalty leviable was Rs. 25,051/-, exceeding the threshold requiring such approval.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be unintentional. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for adjudication afresh due to the CIT(A) having discussed facts of another case and not confronting evidence to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding withdrawals from bank accounts being used for deposits was not properly considered. Therefore, the issue of the Rs. 4,66,000/- addition was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was made in respect of administrative expenses incurred for earning tax-exempt income. The assessee's submissions regarding sufficient funds and investments out of own funds were considered.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper service of notice, violating the principles of natural justice. The facts regarding the alleged bank deposits were also unclear.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2013-14 was in accordance with the jurisdictional High Court's judgment and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For AY 2014-15, one specific ground regarding donation expenditure was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2013-14 was in accordance with the jurisdictional High Court's judgment and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For AY 2014-15, one specific ground regarding donation expenditure was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order without substantiating that notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the case was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2013-14 was in accordance with the jurisdictional High Court's judgment and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For AY 2014-15, one specific ground regarding donation expenditure was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the Land Revenue Officer, which was crucial to determine if the land was a capital asset. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the new evidence and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue agreed to the dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.