ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2021

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that bank guarantee commission is not in the nature of 'commission' as understood in Section 194H, and no principal-agent relationship exists. Therefore, TDS was not required on these payments.

The Tribunal held that even if the assessee could not attend the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. The appeal is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal, respectfully following a co-ordinate bench's decision on identical issues, directed the deletion of the disallowances made under Section 40A(3). The appeals were allowed on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with liberty to restore it if the dispute was not settled as per the scheme.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill was not justified. It also directed the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A and allowed the deductibility of education cess.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill was not justified. It also directed the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A and allowed the deductibility of education cess.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed replied to the AO on the specified date, explaining non-receipt of a notice. Therefore, the AO's observation of non-compliance was contrary to the record.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were bad in law because the sanction for reopening was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the additions made based on these invalid notices were also quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed replied to the AO on the specified date, explaining non-receipt of a notice. Therefore, the AO's observation of non-compliance was contrary to the record.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed replied to the AO on the specified date, explaining non-receipt of a notice. Therefore, the AO's observation of non-compliance was contrary to the record.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed replied to the AO on the specified date, explaining non-receipt of a notice. Therefore, the AO's observation of non-compliance was contrary to the record.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were bad in law because the approval for reopening was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the approval for AY 2002-03 was mechanical.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

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 rectified its previous order to correct the assessee's name and PAN as per the revised filings and the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate. The rest of the order remains unchanged.

The Tribunal rectified its previous order to correct the assessee's name and PAN as per the revised filings and the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate. The rest of the order remains unchanged.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the TPO had wrongly invoked the provisions of Chapter X of the Act for AMP expenses, as the expenses were not an international transaction. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill was not justified. It also directed the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A and allowed the deductibility of education cess.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and clarified its applicability to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal with a low tax effect was not maintainable.

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 as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50 lacs shall not be filed. Since the tax effect in this case was below the specified limit, the appeal was not maintainable.

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 noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed replied to the AO on the specified date, explaining non-receipt of a notice. Therefore, the AO's observation of non-compliance was contrary to the record.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed replied to the AO on the specified date, explaining non-receipt of a notice. Therefore, the AO's observation of non-compliance was contrary to the record.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed replied to the AO on the specified date, explaining non-receipt of a notice. Therefore, the AO's observation of non-compliance was contrary to the record.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Pr. CIT for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the Pr. CIT to verify the conditions for claiming the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) and to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed replied to the AO on the specified date, explaining non-receipt of a notice. Therefore, the AO's observation of non-compliance was contrary to the record.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular applies to pending appeals.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed replied to the AO on the specified date, explaining non-receipt of a notice. Therefore, the AO's observation of non-compliance was contrary to the record.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 were bad in law because the sanction for reopening was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the approval granted was mechanical.

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

The Tribunal referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the utilization of the loan for business purposes, considering various factors like loan amount, capital, reserves, and investment in subsidiary.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on all the grounds raised by the assessee, particularly concerning the allowability of interest for acquiring lease rights. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive adjudication.

The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was on record. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circulars were binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the pre-amended Section 115BBE did not bar the set-off of brought forward losses or depreciation against income assessed under Section 69. This was further clarified by CBDT Circular No. 11/2019, which stated that such set-offs were allowable until AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was on record. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was on record. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires a nexus with exempt income, and that the lease rental income should be treated as business income based on past acceptance by the revenue.

The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was on record. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was on record. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was on record. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.