ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2021

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 considered the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

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 appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals filed by the Revenue were consequently dismissed.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals filed by the Revenue were consequently 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

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

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

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The assessee had opted to settle the tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal accepted this request.

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 appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. 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 filed by the Revenue were dismissed 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 based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 148 was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to properly verify the information from the investigation wing. The additions were quashed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the variation between the sale consideration and the DVO's valuation was only 1.02%, which is less than 5%. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal ruled that such minor variations should not attract Section 50C, and the addition made by the authorities below was unwarranted.

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

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was negligent, there was a reasonable cause related to bank account issues preventing the submission of bank statements. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

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

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not imposable when the assessee had shown sufficient reasons for non-compliance and had ultimately complied with the notices, especially when the quantum additions were deleted. The Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's activities were charitable and eligible for exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had complied with the requirements for carrying forward unutilized funds.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and bad in law because the AO failed to apply his mind and verify the information received from the Investigation Wing. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, following its previous decision on similar grounds.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found an apparent mistake in the AO's order under section 143(1) where tax was computed at a special rate without any income being reported for that rate. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for deciding the rectification application on merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases from the disputed parties. The inability to produce the parties or establish their existence, coupled with the inspector's report, justified the disallowance.