ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2021

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and ambiguous as they did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were not sustainable.

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 The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grievances had been resolved under section 154 of the Act. Consequently, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, which was permitted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the Revenue's appeals. The appeals were dismissed as they had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered, including advertising, publicity, and sales promotion, were incidental to the main business of hotel management. Following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions on identical facts, the payments were not taxable as FTS or royalty, but as business profits not taxable in India.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 found that the assessment proceedings were carried out in haste and the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) also erred in declining the admission of additional evidence.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 Tribunal held that since the ITAT had already granted relief to the assessee in the quantum proceedings by deleting the addition, there was no basis to sustain the penalty proceedings. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

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

The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted this request.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions by producing confirmations, bank statements, and other documentary evidence, and by having the directors depose.

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 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.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked a nexus with any material on record. The Tribunal found that the reasons did not specify the nature of the accommodation entry or the entities involved, rendering the reopening invalid.

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 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.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following Delhi High Court rulings that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned during the relevant year. The Revenue failed to provide contrary binding precedents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the investors, and the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer's adverse inferences were based on technicalities and lacked cogent material.

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

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

The Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim, following its consistent view from previous years. However, it upheld the disallowance under Section 14A, finding that the assessee's suo moto disallowance lacked a proper basis for the current assessment year.

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 for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to file a condonation of delay application, especially considering the medical treatment. The CIT(A) should have then considered this application sympathetically before deciding the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the investors, and the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer's adverse inferences were based on assumptions and lacked cogent material.

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 affirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that the benefit of Section 54H of the Act should be extended to the entire enhanced compensation. The Revenue failed to provide any contrary binding precedents.

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce parties for verification and that confirmations were not properly verified. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on a protective basis in AY 2013-14 after verifying that the income was assessed substantively in AY 2012-13. The addition was not sustainable as the income was already taxed in the correct year.

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 dismissal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as it had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and ambiguous as they did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were not sustainable.