ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees having opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing Form 3 in each case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as the revenue representative did not oppose the application.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on their successful enrollment in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, which provided immunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the entire exemption under Section 54 as the entire LTCG was invested in the new residential property, even though it was jointly purchased with close family members. The ratio of the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Dinesh Verma was applied.

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

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees availing the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing Form 3 in response to their applications.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees availing the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing Form 3 in each case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application. The previous inadmissible exemption claims were not a valid basis for denial, and the High Court ruling correctly supported the eligibility of registered societies for approval.

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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, evidenced by Form No.3. The assessee's application to withdraw the appeal was accepted.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had successfully settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal was accepted.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which was accepted by the department. The revenue had no objection to the assessee's prayer.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings were contrary to the evidence on record. The Tribunal found that the documents on record corroborated the assessee's contention and that the AO had not sufficiently investigated the matter. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in denying registration based on the possibility of activities outside India. The primary consideration for registration is the genuineness of objects and activities, not the geographical application of income.

The Tribunal held that the arrangement was a loan/finance arrangement in the guise of a lease agreement, and the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the assets purchased from borrowed capital. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections.

The Tribunal held that the arrangement was a loan/finance arrangement in the guise of a lease agreement, and the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the assets purchased from borrowed capital. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed factual inaccuracies prevented correct facts from being presented. Since the Revenue did not object to a remand, the case was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after the assessee presents complete facts.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities may have proceeded on incorrect factual assumptions. The assessee requested the matter be remanded to the CIT(A) to present the correct facts, which the Revenue did not object to.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the department had issued Form 3. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

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

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

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and admitting fresh evidence.

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

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

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 found that the entire evidence might not have been considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh speaking order after admitting fresh evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order as it did not adequately address the evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence and address deficiencies.

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

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was arbitrary and based on surmises. The CIT(E) failed to provide evidence that the trust's activities were not genuine and did not confront the assessee with comparable fee structures.

The Tribunal held that the net profit rate of 1.5% sustained by the CIT(A) was on the higher side, considering the assessee's past profit history. The Tribunal restricted the net profit rate to 1% of the gross receipts.

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

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

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

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

The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed a withdrawal application. The revenue had no objection to this application.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made an ex-parte assessment and the CIT(A)'s order did not clearly reflect the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the case was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a certificate was issued by the Income Tax Department.

The assessee opted to settle the issues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Department did not oppose this application.

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

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made an ex-parte assessment and the CIT(A)'s order did not clearly reflect the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the case was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and obtained a certificate under the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It further held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid because the Pr. CIT mechanically approved the notice without applying his mind.

The assessee opted to settle the issues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed an application to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.

The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision in M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) vs. ACIT, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas declaration was not favorable.