ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — May 2021

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) failed to examine the objects and activities of the trust, which are prerequisites for granting registration. Therefore, the order denying registration was bad in law.

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.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that it occurred due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, specifically the non-communication by the appointed counsel. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, as it contravened established legal principles. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessees with an opportunity to be heard and present further evidence when their written submissions were not considered sufficient. Principles of natural justice require fair hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the AO was based on a mere change of opinion, as the AO had already examined these issues during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment framed by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the AO was based on a mere change of opinion, as the AO had already examined these issues during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment framed by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the AO was based on a mere change of opinion, as the AO had already examined these issues during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment framed by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the AO was based on a mere change of opinion, as the AO had already examined these issues during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment framed by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the AO was based on a mere change of opinion, as the AO had already examined these issues during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment framed by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the AO was based on a mere change of opinion, as the AO had already examined these issues during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment framed by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the AO was based on a mere change of opinion, as the AO had already examined these issues during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment framed by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the AO was based on a mere change of opinion, as the AO had already examined these issues during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment framed by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were invalid due to mechanical approval without application of mind and non-service of notice. Furthermore, even on merits, the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of funds for her share of the investment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order of rejection was set aside.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without confirming service of hearing notices on the assessee. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

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 held that the primary or dominant purpose of the society, which included providing infrastructure for lawyers to ensure quality service to the public, spreading legal literacy, and promoting law reforms, constituted the advancement of an object of general public utility. Therefore, the society was entitled to registration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the department has accepted the application. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which were accepted by the Department. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction by directing a fresh assessment on issues not forming part of the limited scrutiny. The Pr. CIT's order was quashed as being bad in law.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee having availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which was not opposed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's participation in the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme and the issuance of the relevant certificate by the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's participation in the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme and the issuance of the relevant certificate by the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the basis for levying the penalty, had been set aside by a previous ITAT order, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the penalties were liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amount surrendered during the survey, which pertained to the assessee's business and was explained, could not be treated as undisclosed income under Section 68. The AO erred in taxing it under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the basis for levying the penalty, had been set aside by a previous ITAT order, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the penalties were liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) passed the order ex parte without confirming if proper notice was served on the assessee. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A should be determined on a proportionate basis, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. Regarding the disallowance of interest on the CC account, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention of having sufficient own funds and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the assessee's claim of charitable activities and did not provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has availed of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and has filed an application which was accepted by the Department. The Revenue had no objection to the assessee's prayer.

The Tribunal found that the tax authorities erred in not properly considering the evidence and explanations. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) to conduct necessary inquiries, including verifying the authenticity of the agreement to sell and the ownership of the land.

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it. However, upon the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and applying for withdrawal, the appeal was 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 held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued by one officer (ITO Phagwara) and the assessment order was passed by another (DCIT International Taxation), without a proper transfer order under Section 127(2). Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.