ITAT Kolkata Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions. It found that income was recognized by the assessee only for completed stages of film production and that the sundry creditor transaction was genuine.

The tribunal held that an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) without disposing of the case on merits is not permissible and violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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 The appeals were consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice. Both the assessee and the Revenue agreed that the case should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition. The appeals would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was rejected by the authorities.

The tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal of appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal of appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition. The appeals would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is rejected by the authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The case was directed to be posted for hearing out of turn if the assessee did not opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the Assessing Officer with jurisdiction failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) and because the jurisdiction should have been with the ITO based on monetary limits specified by CBDT instructions.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the Assessing Officer with jurisdiction failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) and because the jurisdiction should have been with the ITO based on monetary limits specified by CBDT instructions.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the Assessing Officer with jurisdiction failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) and because the jurisdiction should have been with the ITO based on monetary limits specified by CBDT instructions.

The CIT(A) found that the ledger accounts tallied and the AO had not properly appreciated the documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 had been issued. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeals pending.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 had been issued. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeals pending.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 had been issued. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeals pending.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 had been issued. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeal pending.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully proved the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicant companies and the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that the assessments of the share subscriber companies were completed under Section 143(3), which supported the genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the Assessing Officer with jurisdiction failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) and because the jurisdiction should have been with the ITO based on monetary limits specified by CBDT instructions.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.