ITAT Chennai Judgments — February 2021

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.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to their right to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the Vivad-se-Vishwas 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing assessees to restore them if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' applications are rejected. The Tribunal also clarified the consequences of opting out or misrepresentation under the scheme.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing liberty to restore them if the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' application is rejected. It also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or misrepresented.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing liberty to restore them if the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' application is rejected. It also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or misrepresented.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing liberty to restore them if the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' application is rejected. It also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or misrepresented.

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. It also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or misrepresented.

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. It also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or misrepresented.

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. It also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or misrepresented.

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. It also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or misrepresented.

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. It also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or misrepresented.

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

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was noted that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was allowed to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred during the settlement process.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was allowed to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred during the settlement process.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was allowed to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred during the settlement process.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals, noting that it was open for the assessee to approach the tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.

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

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was allowed to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred during the settlement process.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.

The Tribunal held that MCI regulations are not binding on pharmaceutical companies and that the expenses incurred for sales promotion, including gifts to doctors, are allowable business expenditures. The disallowance of travelling expenses was also questioned due to lack of proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the timing of filing the valuation report is not a relevant criterion for its acceptance. The AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the valuation report solely because it was not filed during earlier assessment stages.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was also informed that they could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested, noting that the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme settlement was in progress. The assessee can approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.