ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2021

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, with a caveat for reinstitution if the settlement is not finalized.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law as the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) was not mentioned in the penalty notice. Furthermore, the addition on which the penalty was imposed was later deleted by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that if an original assessment order is inherently invalid or bad in law, its validity can be challenged even in collateral proceedings like a Section 263 revision. An invalid order cannot be revised to make it valid.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of commission paid to two ladies who confirmed the transactions through statements recorded by the AO. However, the disallowance for the other three ladies was confirmed due to lack of evidence. The issue of closing stock valuation was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without deciding the issues on merits, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mechanical application of information from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind by the AO. The assessee had already declared Long Term Capital Gain, and the AO failed to verify the return independently before initiating reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of commission paid to two individuals, citing lack of evidence of services rendered, similar to a previous year's decision. However, it reversed the addition for unconfirmed creditors and the ad-hoc disallowance of business expenses, finding no basis for these additions.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation for acquired agricultural land is a capital receipt and not taxable. The CIT(A) failed to consider the Apex Court's decision in this regard.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of commission paid to two individuals, citing lack of evidence of services rendered, similar to a previous year's decision. However, it reversed the addition for unconfirmed creditors and the ad-hoc disallowance of business expenses, finding no basis for these additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to consistently follow a scientific method for calculating warranty provisions. The varying methods and lack of clear data indicated that a reliable estimate of the provision could not be made, thus upholding the disallowance.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings. It found that the Additional CIT's approval for issuing the notice under Section 147/148 was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served on the assessee before the specified date.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an order as per law.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Income Tax Appellate 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 based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limit for appeals is binding on the revenue and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

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

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request, allowing withdrawal of their appeals and dismissing the Revenue's appeals as infructuous. The settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was the basis for this decision.

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 appeal. 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 appeal. 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 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 withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the appeal. The appeal was rendered infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Income Tax Appellate 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 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 in light of 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.

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