ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received a certificate from the Competent Authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the department had issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's bona fide reasons and lack of negligence. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn to allow the assessee to pursue the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's bona fide reasons and lack of negligence. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn to allow the assessee to pursue the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.

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 The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's intention to opt for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's intention to opt for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, taking a lenient view due to the assessee's intention to avail the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the explained causes for the delay. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, taking a lenient view due to the assessee's intention to avail the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the explained causes for the delay. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's absence from the country and the nationwide lockdown due to Covid-19. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn to allow the assessee to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the dispute relating to tax arrears has been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the Department's appeal has become infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the department had issued certificates. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the department had issued certificates. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to be withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had received Form 3 certificates. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to be withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had received Form 3 certificates. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that while opportunities were provided, there was a lack of clear communication. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

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

The Tribunal held that the related party's consistently returned gross profit, which was accepted by the department, established the fair market value of the transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The assessee's counsel expressed the intention to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that a cash shortage represents unrecorded expenses, not income. Following a previous identical ruling for a group company, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the issue of condonation of delay. The assessee was directed to plead its case afresh before the CIT(A) with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's successful enrollment in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the issuance of Form 3 by the Principal Commissioner.

The tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal, which was not objected to by the revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limit for departmental appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed by the Department where the tax effect was below the enhanced limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when additions are made on an estimate basis, as per the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limit for departmental appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed by the Department where the tax effect was below the enhanced limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the department's lack of objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application is not accepted 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 dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that LOIs are not immovable property and thus Section 50C is not applicable. Consequently, the capital gains are to be calculated based on the actual sale consideration received. The deduction under Section 54F is allowable to the extent of actual investment.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme application is not accepted by the department.

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

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal of the settlement and requested to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection.

The assessee's counsel submitted an application to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application is not accepted by the department.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Act.

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 this request.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee's counsel intended to withdraw the appeal.