ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2020

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not pressed and not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for recall if the circulars were found not applicable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to revive the appeals if the dispute is not settled.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals with the liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for revival if the dispute is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed with these directions.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of widening the scope of scrutiny without prior administrative approval from the competent authority, as required by CBDT instructions, rendered the assessment order null and void. Therefore, the addition made under Section 14A was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not pressed and not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for recall if the circulars were found not applicable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) as the reason provided was genuine. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeals on merit after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) as the reason provided was genuine. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeals on merit after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the reason (death of the counsel's father) was genuine. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not pressed and not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for recall if the circulars were found not applicable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not pressed and not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for recall if the circulars were found not applicable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not pressed and not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for recall if the circulars were found not applicable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not pressed and not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for recall if the circulars were found not applicable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined the recent affidavit from the assessee's President and other contentions. Therefore, the matter of condonation of delay required reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not initiated in accordance with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Since the reopening was beyond four years and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, the reassessment notice was quashed.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issues concerning transfer pricing adjustments for fixed assets and intra-group services back to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide proper documentation and evidence, and principles of natural justice were to be followed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not pressed and not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for recall if the circulars were found not applicable.

The tribunal held that the denial of the adjournment request by the CIT(A) was a violation of the principles of natural justice, as it denied the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that adding the entire amount of unverified creditors was unjustified as payments were made in subsequent years and sales were accepted. However, a partial addition based on a Gross Profit (GP) rate was deemed appropriate due to the failure to substantiate the creditors.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in adjusting brought forward capital losses against the surrendered income, as this was upheld in the quantum appeal. Consequently, there was no shortfall in tax payment, and the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and did not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs, allowing its withdrawal. The assessee's appeal was also dismissed due to non-prosecution and lack of infirmity in the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal was based on incorrect observations and that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to both parties.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and accordingly consigned the appeal to records. The appeal was treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the settlement was not resolved.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.