ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO recorded incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening and the Additional CIT granted approval mechanically without proper application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal was dismissed without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for re-decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on issues related to Section 80IA, exempt income yielding investments, TDS, and Education Cess. The revenue's appeal was dismissed on the issue of Rule 8D(2)(ii), while the assessee's appeal was dismissed on Rule 8D(2)(iii) and CSR expenditure.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on issues related to Section 80IA, exempt income yielding investments, TDS, and Education Cess. The revenue's appeal was dismissed on the issue of Rule 8D(2)(ii), while the assessee's appeal was dismissed on Rule 8D(2)(iii) and CSR expenditure.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on issues related to Section 80IA, exempt income yielding investments, TDS, and Education Cess. The revenue's appeal was dismissed on the issue of Rule 8D(2)(ii), while the assessee's appeal was dismissed on Rule 8D(2)(iii) and CSR expenditure.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and a certificate was issued to this effect. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to have been withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer reopens an assessment based on specific escaped income but then makes an addition on a different ground, it is not permissible without a fresh notice. The assessment order was quashed as it did not comply with the statutory conditions.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT pertains to the powers of the assessing authority and does not limit the powers of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The AO was directed to adjudicate the claim for additional depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be allowed for the entire month even if tax payments were made on the last day. For the assessee's appeals, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation of interest.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be allowed for the entire month even if tax payments were made on the last day. For the assessee's appeals, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation of interest.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be allowed for the entire month even if tax payments were made on the last day. For the assessee's appeals, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation of interest.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be allowed for the entire month even if tax payments were made on the last day. For the assessee's appeals, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation of interest.

The tribunal noted that the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme rendered the Departmental Appeal infructuous. Consequently, the Cross Objection was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO proceeded on wrong facts, specifically noting that the assessee had indeed filed a return of income, contrary to the AO's initial reason for reopening. The Tribunal also found that the addition on merits was unsustainable.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted because the matter in issue was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek reinstitution of the appeals if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not properly served with notices, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Exemptions) were set aside.

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.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Senior DR had no objection.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without a decision on merits. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

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 to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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 appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not properly served with notices, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Exemptions) were set aside.

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

The Tribunal ordered the appeal to be consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the income from corpus fund investments was a diversion of income by overriding title, as it belonged to the Central and State Governments. For the second issue, it was held that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies whose income is computed under Section 44.

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 for withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

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.

The Tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor during insolvency proceedings as per Section 14 of the IBC, 2016. Therefore, all appeals filed by the Assessing Officer were dismissed.