ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The tax dispute had attained finality with no appeal filed against the first appellate authority's order.

The Tribunal noted that the Vivad Se Vishwas Act provides for automatic vacation of appeals upon settlement of disputes. Therefore, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the tax payable under normal provisions is less than the tax payable under MAT provisions, especially when the income assessed under normal provisions is a loss. The Board Circular 25/2015 was also considered binding.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal has become infructuous and non-maintainable due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not properly considering the reason for delay and by failing to adjudicate the appeal on merits as required by law. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal noted that the Vivad Se Vishwas Act provides for the automatic vacation of appeals upon settlement of tax disputes. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee intended to settle the tax dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was rendered not maintainable before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was rendered not maintainable before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was no longer maintainable due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to refile if the settlement process failed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee intended to settle the tax dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was rendered not maintainable before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's contentions on merits and did not follow the principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was not satisfactory and lacked bona fides. The failure to respond to notices, especially under Section 148, indicated a conscious disregard of statutory obligations.

The Tribunal held that Section 44AE is a self-contained code and its provisions, including the higher of presumptive rate or actual income, must be followed. The audited accounts showing higher income should be considered.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was not satisfactory and lacked bona fides. The failure to respond to notices, especially under Section 148, indicated a conscious disregard of statutory obligations.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's contentions on merits and did not follow the principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as it was rendered not maintainable due to the assessee's decision to settle the tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to refile if the settlement process did not conclude.

The Tribunal held that Section 44AE is a self-contained code and its provisions, including the higher of presumptive rate or actual income, must be followed. The audited accounts showing higher income should be considered.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee intended to settle the tax dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was rendered not maintainable before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as it was rendered not maintainable due to the settlement proceedings under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to refile if the settlement process did not conclude successfully.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was complete. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were rendered not maintainable.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the assessee intended to settle the tax dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was rendered not maintainable before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as they were rendered not maintainable due to the settlement process under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to move the Tribunal if the settlement did not reach its logical end.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as they were rendered not maintainable due to the settlement process under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to move the Tribunal if the settlement did not reach its logical end.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as they were rendered not maintainable due to the settlement process under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to move the Tribunal if the settlement did not reach its logical end.