ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2021

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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 occurs regarding the settlement.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that it had obtained Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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 occurs regarding the 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 occurs regarding the settlement.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that it had obtained Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission of having obtained Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 can approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arises from the settlement.

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

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal noted that it is open for assessees to approach them if any injustice arises from the scheme settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal noted that it is open for assessees to approach them if any injustice arises from the scheme settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal noted that it is open for assessees to approach them if any injustice arises from the scheme settlement.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's pursuit of an alternate remedy and the potential for grave injustice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision due to improper appreciation of facts by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal noted that it is open for assessees to approach them if any injustice arises from the scheme settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal noted that it is open for assessees to approach them if any injustice arises from the scheme settlement.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and sought withdrawal, 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 can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal noted that it is open for assessees to approach them if any injustice arises from the scheme settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal noted that it is open for assessees to approach them if any injustice arises from the scheme settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal noted that it is open for assessees to approach them if any injustice arises from the scheme settlement.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications for withdrawal of appeals and had also received Form 3 from the Department under the VSVS scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications for withdrawal of appeals and had also received Form 3 from the Department under the VSVS scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications for withdrawal of appeals and had also received Form 3 from the Department under the VSVS scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Revenue's counsel conceded to this fact.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the share transactions were sham and aimed at introducing unaccounted money as long-term capital gains. The assessees failed to provide any material to disprove these findings.

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 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 settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their submission. The order also noted that the assessee could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained Form No. 5. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Revenue's counsel conceded to this fact.

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 arose from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a recognized startup, is outside the scope of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Therefore, the excess premium received on the issue of shares is not taxable under this section.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's father had owned up to the assets before the Settlement Commission, which accepted the settlement, the additions in the hands of the assessee were not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications for withdrawal of appeals and had also received Form 3 from the Department under the VSVS scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the share transactions were sham and aimed at introducing unaccounted money as long-term capital gains. The assessees failed to provide any material to disprove these findings.

The Tribunal held that additions made for alleged bogus purchases and cash found during the search in the hands of the assessee company were not sustainable as similar additions were already made in the hands of another related entity, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to interest on advances to subsidiaries.

The Tribunal held that additions made for alleged bogus purchases and cash found during the search in the hands of the assessee company were not sustainable as similar additions were already made in the hands of another related entity, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to interest on advances to subsidiaries.

The Tribunal held that additions made for alleged bogus purchases and cash found during the search in the hands of the assessee company were not sustainable as similar additions were already made in the hands of another related entity, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to interest on advances to subsidiaries.

The Tribunal held that additions made for alleged bogus purchases and cash found during the search in the hands of the assessee company were not sustainable as similar additions were already made in the hands of another related entity, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to interest on advances to subsidiaries.

The Tribunal held that additions made for alleged bogus purchases and cash found during the search in the hands of the assessee company were not sustainable as similar additions were already made in the hands of another related entity, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to interest on advances to subsidiaries.

The Tribunal held that additions made for alleged bogus purchases and cash found during the search in the hands of the assessee company were not sustainable as similar additions were already made in the hands of another related entity, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to interest on advances to subsidiaries.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's intent to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that additions made for alleged bogus purchases and cash found during the search in the hands of the assessee company were not sustainable as similar additions were already made in the hands of another related entity, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to interest on advances to subsidiaries.

The Tribunal permitted the appeals to be withdrawn as the parties had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision was made after the Designated Authority issued Form No. 3 for settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the appeals to be withdrawn as the parties had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision was made after the Designated Authority issued Form No. 3 for settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the appeals to be withdrawn as the parties had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision was made after the Designated Authority issued Form No. 3 for settlement.