ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the VSV Scheme, as evidenced by Form No. 3 issued by the Department. Therefore, the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals was accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has availed settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department has accepted the applications. Therefore, the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the VSV Scheme, as evidenced by Form No. 3 issued by the Department. Therefore, the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals was accepted.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the department had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received certificates under the Act. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that the additional evidence was essential for a just decision and that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing it earlier.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative did not oppose it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received certificates under the Act. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received certificates under the Act. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly exercised revisional powers under Section 263 because the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision stating that Section 56(2)(viib) is triggered in the year of share issuance, not receipt of consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 in response to the application. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

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 Revenue not objecting to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the debit balance in the related party's account was primarily on account of sales of goods, not diversion of interest-bearing funds. The TPO had also confirmed that sales to the associate concern were at Arm's Length Price. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee's counsel requested 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 considered the submissions and the fact that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's bona fide reason of attending to his mother's illness. The appeal was then dismissed as withdrawn to allow the assessee to avail the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has availed of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department has accepted the application. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has availed settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the application has been accepted. The Revenue had no objection to the assessee's prayer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the unavoidable circumstances of the father's illness. However, the appeal was treated as withdrawn as the assessee intended to avail the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following earlier rulings in the assessee's own cases. It found no infirmity in allowing the benefit under Section 11 and deleting the additions for software purchases and depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate the absence of inquiries that 'should have been made' as required by Section 263. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction was found to be not in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of Girdawari and court decree, which were not available to the lower authorities. It set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering this new evidence.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of Girdawari and court decree, which were not available to the lower authorities. It set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering this new evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued a certificate. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. For the credit from M/s Shree Radha Commodity Services, the Tribunal followed its own previous order where similar additions were deleted after the AO accepted the genuineness of cash deposits by the creditor.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) wrongly denied registration as there was no finding that the society was not working towards its aims. The Tribunal noted that the dissolution clause was subsequently added and the accumulated funds were used for the temple's maintenance and development.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and settled the tax liability.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the advocate's mistake and the assessee's prompt action. It admitted the additional evidence, deeming it crucial for resolving the controversy, and set aside the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitting the appeal. However, since the assessee wished to avail the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued the necessary certificate. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received a certificate under the Act. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is not accepted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as the Departmental Representative did not oppose the application.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the Revenue not opposing the application.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative did not oppose it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the 1.5% profit rate estimated by the CIT(A) was on the higher side, considering the assessee's past profit history which was below 1%. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the net profit rate to 1% of the gross receipts.

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

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal about the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's successful enrollment in the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the issuance of Form No. 3.

The tribunal noted that the assessee intended 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 noted that the assessee had availed of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for and been accepted under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and made a prayer for withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to this prayer.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative did not oppose it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The consequential assessment proceeding resulted in no adjustment to the assessee's income.