ITAT Jaipur Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his onus by providing evidence and an admission statement from Shri Abhishek Agarwal, who claimed responsibility for all transactions in the bank account. The revenue authorities had not rebutted this explanation.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was pending before the Hon'ble Bench as on January 31, 2020, and the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the agricultural land sold by the assessee was a capital asset. It also agreed that the claim of the land being ancestral was not substantiated by the assessee.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had submitted a petition under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020' for settlement. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not raise any objection to this request.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not raise any objection to this request.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had submitted a petition under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020' for settlement. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied their mind to the facts and documents on record, and the claim for deduction under Section 54 was rightly allowed. The PCIT's order was found to be erroneous as the AO's assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' to settle the matter.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied their mind to the facts and documents on record, and the claim for deduction under Section 54 was rightly allowed. The PCIT's order was found to be erroneous as the AO's assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' to settle the matter.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was restored to the AO, the penalty appeal should also be restored to the AO for fresh decision. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for disallowing the loss based on the purchaser's death and the assessee's filing status was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that sale receipts were submitted and the non-filing of returns by the due date is only relevant for carry forward of losses, which was not the claim here.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted adequate enquiry into the claimed discounts and receipts, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment for de novo examination was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the commission payments were made to non-residents for services rendered outside India and were not chargeable to tax in India, there was no liability to deduct TDS under Section 195. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the commission payments were made to non-residents for services rendered outside India and were not chargeable to tax in India, there was no liability to deduct TDS under Section 195. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was deleted.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely based on the deeming provisions of Section 50C when there is no evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration. The assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the return initially, as their income was below the taxable limit based on the actual sale consideration.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- was explained as recovery of advance, with the transaction substantiated by an agreement and balance sheet entries. The non-appearance of the recipient after summons was served was not a sufficient ground to reject the explanation. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete this addition.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' to settle the matter. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' to settle the matter. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' for settlement. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal as it had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the appeal was pending as on the specified date. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on the assessee's application to settle the matter under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme".