ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2020

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The tribunal noted that the respondent had no objection to the withdrawal.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 40A(3) were not attracted as the payments were made due to business contingency and the genuineness of the payments was not doubted. The assessee acted as a facilitator, and the payments were passed on to ticketing agencies.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on schemes and projects needs to be examined by the AO after considering additional documents filed by the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to Section 14A and royalty payments.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they did not specify the limb under which penalty was being initiated (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Furthermore, the claim of depreciation on flats was considered a human error, not warranting penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they did not specify the limb under which penalty was being initiated (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Furthermore, the claim of depreciation on flats was considered a human error, not warranting penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to make proper inquiry regarding the provision for service warranty expenditure. The Pr. CIT rightly invoked Section 263 to direct further verification of this claim.

The Tribunal held that additions made in a previous assessment under Section 143(3) could not be repeated under Section 153A without incriminating material. It also found that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not based on incriminating material, thus deleting both additions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they did not specify the limb under which penalty was being initiated (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Furthermore, the claim of depreciation on flats was considered a human error, not warranting penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they did not specify the limb under which penalty was being initiated (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Furthermore, the claim of depreciation on flats was considered a human error, not warranting penalty.

The Tribunal held that the addition for income lying with DGH was not justified as the income was accounted for in the subsequent year and there was no revenue loss. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance of royalty expenses, finding that the liabilities were crystallized in the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they did not specify the limb under which penalty was being initiated (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Furthermore, the claim of depreciation on flats was considered a human error, not warranting penalty.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the Revenue due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed subject to the disputes being fully settled under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the addition for income lying with DGH was not justified as it was accounted for in the subsequent year and there was no revenue loss. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance of royalty expenses, finding that the liability was crystallized in the relevant year.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they did not specify the limb under which penalty was being initiated (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Furthermore, the claim of depreciation on flats was considered a human error, not warranting penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of publishing and selling textbooks fall within the meaning of 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was decided ex parte and that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on schemes and projects needs to be examined by the AO after considering additional documents filed by the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to Section 14A and royalty payments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of publishing and selling textbooks fall within the meaning of 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of publishing and selling textbooks fall within the meaning of 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue did not challenge the quashing of the reopening of the assessment, it had no authority to decide the additions on merits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without granting a proper opportunity of hearing. Additionally, the Assessing Officer did not consider the details provided by the assessee during the fresh assessment proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal followed its own coordinate bench's decision from a previous assessment year where identical facts led to the allowance of exemption. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's intention to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty for the assessee to seek recall if the scheme settlement is not granted.

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed. This is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on procedural grounds of manual filing. Since an electronic appeal was also filed, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed, subject to the settlement of disputes under the scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of their appeal and cross-objection. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found no change in facts from earlier years where the High Court had ruled in favor of the assessee.

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 their appeal and cross-objection. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee had filed documentary evidence, the CIT(A) had not fully appreciated it. The AO's remand report was also not negative. Therefore, the issues were set aside for fresh consideration by the CIT(A).

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.

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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT.

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

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs does not exceed the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for appeals before the Appellate Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was considered non-maintainable.

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 in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.