ITAT Chennai Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal held that the legal heir of the deceased assessee should be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order. Both parties agreed to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee as withdrawn, in light of the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of tax disputes. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details regarding the property and income generated from it to substantiate the large interest claim. Therefore, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had paid her share of interest to her husband, who had admitted receiving it in his return. Therefore, the disallowance of the interest claim was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of tax disputes. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of tax disputes. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of tax disputes. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of tax disputes. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of tax disputes. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of tax disputes. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that civil structures for drainage and water supply are plant and entitled to higher depreciation, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also held that insurance spare consumption is revenue in nature and deductible, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing assessees to restore them if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' applications are rejected.

The Tribunal held that civil structures for drainage and water supply are plant and entitled to higher depreciation, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also held that insurance spare consumption is revenue in nature and deductible, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing assessees to restore them if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' applications are rejected.

The Tribunal held that civil structures for drainage and water supply are plant and entitled to higher depreciation, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also held that insurance spare consumption is revenue in nature and deductible, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing assessees to restore them if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' applications are rejected.

The Tribunal held that civil structures for drainage and water supply are plant and entitled to higher depreciation, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also held that insurance spare consumption is revenue in nature and deductible, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing assessees to restore them if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' applications are rejected.

The Tribunal held that input service tax credit is deductible under Section 37(1) when written off. However, it remanded the issue to the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding the rejection of its refund application by the Service Tax Department.

The Tribunal held that the license fee received for licensing a fully furnished hotel along with the license to run it is a business receipt. Therefore, it should be assessed under the head 'income from business or profession' and not 'income from house property'.

The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing assessees to restore them if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' applications are rejected.

The Tribunal held that while an addition cannot be made solely on a retracted confession, if corroborated by evidence, it can be sustained. However, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's evidence regarding the property's value, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue as infructuous and the cross-objections filed by the assessee as withdrawn, in light of the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of 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 noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of pending 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 noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of pending 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 noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of pending 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, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessees to restore their appeals if their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessees to restore their appeals if their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessees to restore their appeals if their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessees to restore their appeals if their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessees to restore their appeals if their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessees to restore their appeals if their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessees to restore their appeals if their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of certain objects did not amount to a change in the main object of establishing educational institutions. It also found that the assessment proceedings were pending and the objects remained the same, thus extending the benefit of Section 12AA to the assessee for the preceding assessment year.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessees to restore their appeals if their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessees to restore their appeals if their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessees to restore their appeals if their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal held that protective additions made towards cash found, profit from M/s. Vikas Bearing and Wires, and sundry creditors could not be sustained as substantive additions were made in the hands of Mr. Dinesh R Mehta. However, additions towards cash credit in the bank account and interest received were upheld due to the assessee's failure to explain the source of income.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not properly verified the bank statements and other relevant details. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of direct tax disputes. Considering the assessee's intention to utilize the scheme and the submission of Form 3, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was also given liberty to approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred during the settlement.

The Tribunal held that protective additions made towards cash found, profit from M/s. Vikas Bearing and Wires, and sundry creditors could not be sustained as substantive additions were made in the hands of Mr. Dinesh R Mehta. However, additions towards cash credit in the bank account and interest received were upheld due to the assessee's failure to explain the source of income.

The Tribunal held that protective additions made towards cash found, profit from M/s. Vikas Bearing and Wires, and sundry creditors could not be sustained as substantive additions were made in the hands of Mr. Dinesh R Mehta. However, additions towards cash credit in the bank account and interest received were upheld due to the assessee's failure to explain the source of income.