ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2021

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and decided to consign the appeal to records. The dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

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

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as there was a genuine reason for the delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merit after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment under Section 153A was invalid, following the Kabul Chawla judgment. Consequently, the additions made were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on mobilization advances intrinsically linked to the assessee's business and capital expenditure should be treated as capital receipts, reducing the project cost, and not as taxable income.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was time-barred. Consequently, the additions made to the taxpayer's income based on this order were unsustainable and deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the TPO's rejection of one comparable company due to functional dissimilarity. However, it found that both the assessee and TPO had used inappropriate comparable companies for benchmarking.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment under Section 153A was invalid, following the Kabul Chawla judgment. Consequently, the additions made were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act and Form No. 3 was issued, the Department's appeal is to be treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment under Section 153A was invalid, following the Kabul Chawla judgment. Consequently, the additions made were quashed.

The Tribunal was informed that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and had been issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not pressing the appeal and had requested to withdraw it. Since the Revenue did not object, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, 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 accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The appeal was dismissed as it had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal was informed that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and had been issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal was informed that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and had been issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for default, without deciding on merits, is not sustainable in law. The CIT(A) is required to decide appeals on merits and provide reasons for the decision.

The Tribunal held that strategic investments in group concerns are subject to disallowance under Section 14A, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Maxopp Investment Ltd. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the Assessing Officer's dissatisfaction.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the matter being settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The matter had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and Form No. 3 had been issued.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment under Section 153A was invalid, following the Kabul Chawla judgment. Consequently, the additions made were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A, finding that some expenditure is inherently linked to earning dividend income. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground regarding set off of losses as the matter was pending before the Assessing Officer for rectification.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. The assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity of the payees and the genuineness of the transactions, even after being provided with sufficient opportunities.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The matter in issue was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.