ITAT Mumbai Judgments — December 2020

The Tribunal considered the assessee's petition for withdrawal of the appeal. As the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Tribunal found it appropriate to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's petition for withdrawal. As the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Tribunal found it appropriate to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the revenue to file a miscellaneous application for restoration if the scheme was not opted for or accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and obtained the necessary form. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's withdrawal request due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the prayer.

The Tribunal held that the special audit was not justified as the AO did not demonstrate the complexity of the accounts and the approval process appeared mechanical. Consequently, the assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.

The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The departmental representative did not oppose the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and decided that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission regarding the VVS Scheme. The revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declarations were not accepted.

The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application for restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme outcome was not in their favour.

The tribunal rejected the adjournment application. Citing a Madras High Court decision, the tribunal dismissed the appeal with liberty to recall it if the assessee did not succeed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, as the assessee did not attend the proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee has opted to settle the litigation under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) v. ACIT, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application to recall and restore the appeal if either they did not opt for the scheme as contemplated or if the department did not accept their application. The Tribunal further clarified that if the appeal is restored due to the declaration not being accepted by the Revenue, the Registry shall not insist on a condonation of delay application, in line with the Madras High Court's ruling. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal with these observations.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when the income has been assessed on an estimated basis. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus by producing documentary evidence like PAN, confirmations, bank statements, and share allotment records. It further noted that the repayment of loan amounts supported the assessee's claim that these were not undisclosed income.

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal, following the Madras High Court's decision, with liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement is not favorable or accepted. The appeal was dismissed as per the scheme's provisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus by producing documentary evidence like PAN, confirmations, bank statements, and share allotment records. It further noted that the repayment of loan amounts supported the assessee's claim that these were not undisclosed income.

The Tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. As the matter was resolved, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. As the matter was resolved, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the Revenue has no objection. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed at this stage.

The assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act for settlement of the penalty demand, and this declaration was accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the 'Vivad se Vishwas' application is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions, and the revenue's additional ground regarding the admission of evidence was without merit.

The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court judgment, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement was not favorable.

The Tribunal directed the TPO to include 'Icra Online Ltd.' in the list of comparable companies. Following a previous ruling in the assessee's own case, if this inclusion brings the assessee's margin within the +/-5% tolerance range, no adjustment would be required.

The Tribunal held that companies engaged in software distribution are valid comparables for TV channel distribution, citing previous judgments in the assessee's own case and other similar cases. The AO was directed to re-determine the arm's length price using these comparables.

The Tribunal held that the Indian representative was an agent of independent status and not a PE, thus the advertisement revenue was not taxable in India. It also ruled that interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the income was subject to TDS.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, finding that the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without proper examination of the reasonableness of the remuneration. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders in similar cases and High Court decisions.

Following the Madras High Court's decision in Nannusamy Mohan (HUF), the Tribunal disposed of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement was not favorable or accepted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' application was not accepted.

Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement is not favorable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal rectified inadvertent errors in its previous order by correcting paragraph numbering and modifying certain observations. These changes were made to ensure accuracy and clarity without altering the appeal's final decision.

The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court judgment, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement was not in their favor.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 17% of the bogus purchases, citing a previous coordinate bench decision. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at a restricted rate of 4.6%, following its own precedent for the preceding assessment year. The Tribunal also concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the validity of reopening the assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020'. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the application under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' was not accepted.

The Tribunal disposed of the appeals, following a Madras High Court decision, with liberty to the assessee to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement is not successful. The assessee was directed to file the declaration under the scheme.

The tribunal noted the assessee's intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' application was not accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme did not resolve the litigation or if the department did not accept the application.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and had filed the necessary application. Therefore, it was deemed purposeless to keep the appeal pending.