ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and the Designated Authority had issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the differences in loan accounts, interest, administrative expenses, and opening balance could not be considered as concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty levied on these counts was not justified.

The assessee has received a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that setting up an industry, obtaining permissions, and paying advance for raw materials signifies the commencement of business, even if the raw material has not yet reached the premises. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. LG Electronic (India) Ltd., the loss claim is allowable.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the ongoing settlement under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.

The National Faceless Assessment Centre subsequently passed an assessment order accepting the assessee's returned income without any additions. Therefore, the appeal against the revision order became infructuous.

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

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

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 additions made under Section 153A are invalid if no incriminating material is found during the search, especially for unabated assessments. Therefore, the disallowance of interest and the assessment of cash credit were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, completed assessments could not be disturbed under Section 153A. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, completed assessments could not be disturbed under Section 153A. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that once the additions on which penalty was levied are deleted by the appellate authority, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was justified.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they were pursuing settlement under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and had received Form No. 4, awaiting Form No. 5. The Tribunal accepted the request.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and paid the tax amount. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No. 5. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No. 5. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle disputes. Since the assessee had filed the necessary forms and paid the tax, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received Form No. 4 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and was awaiting Form No. 5. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle pending disputes. Having filed the necessary forms and paid the tax amount, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a Form No.5 was issued. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No. 5. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, indicating a willingness to settle the dispute. Following a similar High Court decision, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No. 5. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a Form No.5 was issued. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission and no objection from the revenue, dismissed both the appeals as withdrawn.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed both appeals filed by the assessee as withdrawn, as per the assessee's request. There was no objection from the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had utilized the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute and had submitted the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeal was no longer required.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied for withdrawal of appeals under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 5. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied for withdrawal of appeals under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 5. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied for withdrawal of appeals under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 5. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Since the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits, the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT held that an appellate authority must decide an appeal on merits with a speaking order and cannot dismiss it for default unless expressly authorized. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 272A for failure to comply with a notice under Section 142(1) was not valid for assessment years prior to 2017-18, as the relevant provision was inserted prospectively. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 272A for failure to comply with a notice under Section 142(1) was not valid for assessment years prior to 2017-18, as the relevant provision was inserted prospectively. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.