ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — December 2020

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of a certificate by the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal found it unclear whether the CIT(E) had specifically asked for the rationale behind seeking donations. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received relevant certificates from the Income Tax Department.

The tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received relevant certificates from the Income Tax Department.

The tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received relevant certificates from the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal held that actions taken against a company after its name has been struck off are null and void. It also noted procedural lapses in the reassessment proceedings, including lack of proper notice and application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum proceedings were set aside and restored to the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty order was also set aside and restored to the CIT(A) to be decided after the quantum appeal is decided.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was justified as the assessee failed to disclose material facts regarding the application of income. However, the alternative claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) was directed to be examined by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were vague and lacked specific details regarding the information received and its connection to the assessee. Consequently, the reopening was held to be bad in law.

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

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the issuance of Form 3 by the Income Tax Department.

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as the dispute was settled under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Revenue had no objection.

The assessee has settled the dispute under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and made the necessary payments. The department has no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, with the department accepting the payment and issuing Form No. 3. The revenue had no objection.

The assessee had filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and settled the dispute. The department had issued Form No. 3, and the revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to seek forensic examination of the agreement and verify the witness statement, allowing cross-examination if the evidence is found relevant.

The assessee's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's application under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, where the dispute was settled by making necessary payments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proof of service of notices. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that advances were made from such funds. For the land development expenditure, the Tribunal found that the evidence was crucial and should be examined. Both issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department before the ITAT. The Department itself prayed for withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to household expenses as not pressed. However, it allowed the appeal concerning the addition of Rs. 6 lacs on account of cash deposits, finding that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof by providing evidence of earnest money received and returned.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the penalty order was served at a wrong address, leading to her unawareness. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering this factual position.

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 Form 3 from the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's plausible explanation and the principles of natural justice. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the additions forming the basis for the penalty were themselves deleted by the Tribunal.

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 Form 3 from the Income Tax Department.