ITAT Chennai Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly hearing the assessee, despite granting adjournments. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to a company merger. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the bank account showed cash deposits and immediate withdrawals for Demand Drafts. In the interest of justice, the issue requires a fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient particulars to justify its disallowance. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination and determination of the disallowance after providing the assessee with an opportunity to furnish necessary details.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not duly examined the assessee's explanation and supporting documents regarding the sources of bank deposits. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee's plea to assess the peak of cash credits as income requires fresh examination by the AO, as the assessee could not provide documentary evidence for loans.

The Tribunal found no valid reasoning for re-assessing the income from capital gains to business income. It held that the AO made the re-assessment without proper justification. Therefore, the addition made in the re-assessment order was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality does not apply to transactions with non-members, and therefore, entrance fees collected from them are taxable. The decision of the Supreme Court in Citizen Co-operative Limited was followed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and both parties agreed to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was also allowed to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed him to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the Department.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and both parties agreed to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the DVO's valuation for capital gains computation but directed the AO to allow the entire interest paid on the housing loan as part of the cost of the asset, subject to verification.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. The Tribunal also clarified the consequences of opting out or misrepresentation under the scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of direct tax disputes. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Following a similar decision by the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of direct tax disputes. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. The Tribunal also clarified the consequences of opting out or misrepresentation under the scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of direct tax disputes. Following a similar decision by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessees to restore them if their applications under the scheme are rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of direct tax disputes. Following a similar decision by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessees to restore them if their applications under the scheme are rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of direct tax disputes. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme is rejected by the designated authority.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme is rejected by the designated authority.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme is rejected by the designated authority.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing liberty to restore them if the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' application is rejected. The Tribunal clarified the consequences of opting out or misrepresentation under the scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle disputes. Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle disputes. Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle disputes. Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle disputes. Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle disputes. Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle disputes. Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of direct tax disputes. Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.