ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed the required forms. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal and dismissal. The appeals were rendered infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 restored the issue of premium on re-purchase of plots to the AO for verification, directing deletion of the addition if plots were sold at a higher price. The issue of provision for site development expenses was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

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.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, granting a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case regarding the bogus purchases. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the evidence.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

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 assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal accepted the withdrawal 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 Senior DR had no objection to this request.

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 to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee opting for 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 to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears 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 dismissed the appeals 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 appeals.

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

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid and bad in law due to the Assessing Officer (AO) recording wrong and incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening. The approval granted was also found to be without application of mind.

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 dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. 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 had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the additions for AY 2012-13 were based on an order for AY 2010-11 which was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh assessment. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2012-13 was also set aside to the AO. The appeal for AY 2009-10 was dismissed as the CIT(A)'s order was found to be without infirmity.

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

The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and treated the appeal as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal held that the Director of the company had no locus standi to file the appeal after the appointment of the IRP. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty. This was based on the fact that the quantum proceedings for the relevant assessment years were quashed by the Tribunal and subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute was not resolved under the Act.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of depreciation and the addition on account of notional interest. Regarding the write-back of sundry creditors, the Tribunal held that Section 41(1) and Section 50 were not applicable, but the cost of fixed assets should be reduced by the written-back amount.

The Tribunal noted that the additions for AY 2012-13 were based on an order for AY 2010-11 which was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh assessment. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2012-13 was also set aside to the AO. The appeal for AY 2009-10 was dismissed as the CIT(A)'s order was found to be without infirmity.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had resolved the pending issue under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the deemed dividend addition, finding the loan to be a commercial transaction. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to verify TDS compliance for testing charges in line with High Court rulings.

The Tribunal, following a similar decision for an earlier assessment year, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to both parties.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order, which led to the impugned assessment order, was quashed by the Tribunal, the assessment order itself did not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the assessee's appeal.

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