ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was because the matters in issue had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, and relevant forms had been issued by the Department.

The Tribunal held that a legal claim can be made at any stage and the cited Supreme Court decision does not restrict appellate authorities. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the reinvestment of sale proceeds.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and did not properly adjudicate the issues, including the initiation of reassessment. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that there was a contradiction between the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment (assessee procured shares of G.J. Holdings Ltd.) and the assessment order (assessee received share capital/premium from G.J. Holdings Ltd.). This indicated a non-application of mind and borrowed satisfaction by the AO, rendering the reassessment proceedings a nullity.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order could not be considered erroneous as he had conducted thorough inquiries and taken a plausible view based on the prevailing law at that time. The PCIT's revisionary power under Section 263 was not justified as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue were not satisfied.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and receipt of the relevant form.

The Tribunal held that due to technical glitches in the e-filing website at the time of filing, the assessee should not be put to a disadvantage. For substantial justice, the CIT(A) was directed to admit the manual appeal for regular hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's total gross receipts were significantly higher than the total cash deposits, no addition was warranted for unexplained cash deposits. The explanations provided by the assessee were considered reasonable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal as a duplicate was improper and set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and received Form-III. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable in cases where shares are acquired through a barter system (issuance of shares in exchange for shares) without any actual cash consideration. However, for the second issue regarding Rs. 8,50,000/-, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding 100% deduction under Section 80-IB for the Agartala unit should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering previous tribunal orders. The disallowance of director sitting fees was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 13(1)(b) applies to charitable societies, not religious societies, and since the assessee is a religious society, there was no violation. Following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that Section 13(1)(b) applies to charitable societies, not religious societies, and since the assessee is a religious society, there was no violation. Following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, 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 ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to appear and comply with proceedings. The CIT(A) was initially duty-bound to decide on merits despite the assessee's absence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received Form No. 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal pending before the Tribunal is deemed to have been withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument in principle, following a coordinate bench's decision. The issue was restored to the AO to verify facts and adopt the circle rate on the date of the agreement to sell for computing capital gains.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the VSV Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, 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 held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if there is no exempt income received or receivable during the year. It also held that certain miscellaneous income, including rent recovery and write-back of liabilities, were incidental to the business and eligible for Section 80IA deduction.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the net capital gain of Rs. 99,125/- should be considered as income, not the gross receipt. It also held that the assessee had satisfied the conditions for accumulation under Section 11(2) and that the benefit of Section 11 should be allowed.

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 treated the quantum and penalty appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn and dismissed them. Liberty was granted to approach the ITAT for recall if the dispute was not settled.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, in line with the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No-3. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the revised monetary limits set by CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, making the initiation of penalty proceedings bad in law. Furthermore, on merits, the claims were considered bonafide mistakes, not intentional concealment of income.

The tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits. The assessee was directed to comply with the proceedings to avoid an ex-parte decision.

The Tribunal treated the quantum and penalty appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn and dismissed them. Liberty was granted to approach the ITAT for recall if the dispute was not settled.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to demonstrate how both charges of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars were satisfied. Relying on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that while the claim was made late, it was an allowable expenditure as per various Supreme Court decisions. The CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional claim without proper consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, 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.