ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had issued notices under Section 133(6) and received confirmations from the parties. These parties had offered receipts to tax, and TDS was deducted by the assessee. Considering the specialized nature of the assessee's business and the services provided, the CIT(A)'s finding of genuineness was confirmed as the Revenue failed to controvert these facts.

Citing a Madras High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to apply for its restoration if the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.

Following the precedent of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application if the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, is not accepted by the Revenue for any reason.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the tax effect involved was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 60 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, rendering the appeal non-maintainable.

The tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, instructing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) proceedings.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to resolve the matter through the DTVSVS 2024. Consequently, noting the assessee's choice, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

Following the assessee's submission of having opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application, should their declaration under Section 4 of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme Act not be accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the application, noting that the assessee claimed non-receipt of electronic notices and thus being denied adequate opportunity of hearing. The matter has been restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision in accordance with law, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme is not accepted by the Revenue authorities.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to apply for restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the scheme is not accepted by the Revenue, aligning with a precedent set by the Madras High Court.

The ITAT found the assessees' contention regarding non-appearance to be cogent and, in the interest of justice, remitted all 8 appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to both assessees, who were also directed to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons bonafide as service of notices was not evident from the record. It restored the matter to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration of the Section 12A application, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Following a precedent set by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.

Following a precedent from the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.