ITAT Kolkata Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the appeal was decided ex-parte without hearing the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) should have heard the appeal on merits as per Section 250(6).

The assessee requested to withdraw both appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the government subsidy received by the assessee was capital in nature. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case.

The assessee requested to withdraw both appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity to the assessee to furnish evidence regarding the payee's tax compliance. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue afresh after verification.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity to the assessee to furnish evidence regarding the payee's tax compliance. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue afresh after verification.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, as the AO had conducted thorough investigations into the share capital and premium. The AO's reassessment order was based on a plausible view aligned with judicial precedents.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity to the assessee to furnish evidence regarding the payee's tax compliance. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue afresh after verification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the government subsidy received by the assessee was capital in nature. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the loan was advanced in the ordinary course of business and that Section 56(2)(viia) was not applicable as the assessee was a subsidiary of a public company. Furthermore, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of certificates accepting the declarations.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's plea to withdraw the appeal, stating that there was no point in keeping it pending given the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The withdrawal would not preclude the competent authority from accepting the forms filed under the scheme.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of certificates accepting the declarations.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal accepted the assessees' applications to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The decision was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

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

The tribunal accepted the assessees' applications to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

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

The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded proper satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D. The issue of quantum of disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of leave encashment provisions was upheld based on Supreme Court ruling, but deduction on actual payment basis was directed to be considered.

The Tribunal held that even if a company does not carry on business, it must incur expenses to maintain its establishment and discharge legal obligations while it is in operation. Therefore, the expenses claimed by the assessee were allowable.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the royalty liability, though disputed and subject to arbitration, had crystallized and was allowable as a business expenditure, following previous precedents. The claim for education cess on Income Tax was allowed, and the issue of education cess on DDT was allowed on similar reasoning.

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

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's successful enrollment in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The tribunal accepted the assessees' applications to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were 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 accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

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

The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded proper satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D. The issue of quantum of disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of leave encashment provisions was upheld based on Supreme Court ruling, but deduction on actual payment basis was directed to be considered.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It noted that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the assessee's arguments regarding the investigation report and the nature of the transaction as an intermediary role.

The tribunal accepted the assessees' applications to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.