ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — April 2021

The tribunal considered the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue's lack of objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the trust's objectives were not exclusively religious but aimed at propagating knowledge for the welfare of the general public, irrespective of religion or creed. Since the trust was already registered under Section 12AA for charitable purposes, the same objects should not be considered non-charitable for Section 80G approval.

The Tribunal heard the submissions and perused the record. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's contentions regarding the unauthorized nature of the deposit and the lack of proper documentation. The Tribunal noted significant lapses by the bank and tax authorities in not investigating the true beneficiary.

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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its previous orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found no merit in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the assessee's claim for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard, as merely filing written submissions does not constitute a waiver of the right to a personal hearing. The order was set aside due to the violation of principles of natural justice.

The tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. The waiver of the right to be heard must be conscious and with full knowledge.

The Tribunal held that since the ITAT had previously set aside the Pr. CIT's revision order, the AO's subsequent penalty order became void ab initio. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

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

The Tribunal considered the submissions and the fact that the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries by issuing notices under Section 133(6) and examining the documents provided by the assessee. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was found to be incorrect as the AO's order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee was just and necessary for proper adjudication. The CIT(A) had correctly considered the remand report from the Assessing Officer which confirmed the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as the belief was based on borrowed satisfaction and routine information without independent application of mind. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued the relevant certificate. The appeal was therefore allowed to be withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3 from the Income Tax Department. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3 from the Income Tax Department. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3 from the Income Tax Department. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3 from the Income Tax Department. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits, being out of earlier withdrawals for agricultural produce sales, was plausible. The Department did not provide evidence to show the withdrawn amount was utilized elsewhere. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the appeal on the grounds of non-representation and consistency with previous decisions on similar facts. The rental income was correctly assessed under 'Income from House Property'.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient non-interest-bearing funds to cover the advances made in earlier years. The authorities below failed to provide cogent reasons or evidence to reject the assessee's contentions.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and obtained Form 3.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making additions as the sale of agricultural land fell under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The purchaser's affidavit confirming the payment was accepted, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the explanation regarding returned goods and the discrepancy in import values was not properly considered. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reason for reopening was factually incorrect and contradictory to the assessment order. This indicated a non-application of mind, rendering the reopening invalid.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that the variation in electricity consumption fell within the acceptable 15% range. The Tribunal found the issue to be squarely covered by a previous ITAT decision in a similar case.

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

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the AO. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to address shortcomings in documents and appear before the AO due to ignorance and miscommunication by his previous counsel.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without ensuring proper communication of the hearing date to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The case was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's prayer was for restoring the issues for proper consideration on merits. Both parties agreed to a remand back to the AO.