ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The tribunal accepted the assessees' request for withdrawal of their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal accepted the assessees' request for withdrawal of their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was in gross violation of natural justice as the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Shri R.K. Miglani, whose statement formed the basis of additions. Furthermore, the assessment for AY 2006-07 was annulled for being framed under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had erred in treating the entire sale consideration as taxable capital gains without considering exemptions and proper valuation. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the date of allotment or agreement is relevant for computing the holding period of a capital asset, not the date of registration of the conveyance deed. Therefore, the asset was considered long-term, and indexation benefit was allowed.

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 assessees' request for withdrawal of their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that since the order passed under Section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment and subsequent penalty, was quashed by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) must also fall. The principle 'sublato fundamento cadit opus' (when the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls) was applied.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was in gross violation of natural justice as the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Shri R.K. Miglani, whose statement formed the basis of additions. Furthermore, the assessment for AY 2006-07 was annulled for being framed under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was in gross violation of natural justice as the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Shri R.K. Miglani, whose statement formed the basis of additions. Furthermore, the assessment for AY 2006-07 was annulled for being framed under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C.

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 held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue's counsel had no objection to this submission.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the 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. This was due to 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 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and treated the appeal as dismissed. However, it allowed the assessee to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the settlement is not resolved.

The tribunal accepted the assessees' request for withdrawal of their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was in gross violation of natural justice as the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Shri R.K. Miglani, whose statement formed the basis of additions. Furthermore, the assessment for AY 2006-07 was annulled for being framed under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C.

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

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the request.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal, following its previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the disallowance in light of the observations made in prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the MAP settlement resolved all issues, rendering the appeals infructuous. However, interest levied under Section 234B was deleted for the taxpayer based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were invalid as assessment proceedings under Section 143 were already pending. Furthermore, on merits, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.