ITAT Raipur Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as per the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the Revenue. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal due to the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not raise any objection to the withdrawal request.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, which resulted in a refund. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Direct Tax Vivas Se Vishwas Scheme 2020'. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the VSV Scheme and submitted the necessary forms. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed the necessary applications. 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 and filed the necessary applications. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for 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 revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as per the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee sought disposal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal of its appeal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. The Revenue did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal as the Revenue did not object.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal due to having availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object, and the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The assessee requested disposal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal of its appeal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as per the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as per the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, which resulted in a refund. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects, including promoting trade, protecting members' interests, and organizing awareness programs, amounted to the advancement of general public utility. It was also held that leasing developed plots to members based on contributions does not disqualify the assessee from charitable status.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the unaccounted receipts is taxable, not the entire gross amount. The lower authorities erred in taxing the full surrendered amount.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing income without notice and in directing action for years not under appeal. The Tribunal also found that the assessee could not be prevented from claiming higher service tax deductions if otherwise permissible and remitted the issue to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the unaccounted receipts is taxable, not the entire gross amount. The lower authorities erred in taxing the full surrendered amount.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing income without notice and in directing action for years not under appeal. The Tribunal also found that the assessee could not be prevented from claiming higher service tax deductions if otherwise permissible and remitted the issue to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the unaccounted receipts is taxable, not the entire gross amount. The lower authorities erred in taxing the full surrendered amount.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the unaccounted receipts is taxable, not the entire gross amount. The lower authorities erred in taxing the full surrendered amount.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the unaccounted receipts is taxable, not the entire gross amount. The lower authorities erred in taxing the full surrendered amount.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the unaccounted receipts is taxable, not the entire gross amount. The lower authorities erred in taxing the full surrendered amount.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the unaccounted receipts is taxable, not the entire gross amount. The lower authorities erred in taxing the full surrendered amount.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants. The additions made by the AO under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had established the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants with sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal also addressed other grounds raised by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's directions regarding loan transactions (Points 1-4) were unsustainable due to lack of proper opportunity and incorrect application of Section 68. However, directions concerning Section 43CA (Point 5) were partly upheld for variations exceeding 10%. The direction regarding Section 40(a)(ia) (Point 6) was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants. The additions made by the AO under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants. The additions made by the AO under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants. The additions made by the AO under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had established the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants with sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal also addressed other grounds raised by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had established the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants with sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal also addressed other grounds raised by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had established the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants with sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal also addressed other grounds raised by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had established the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants with sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal also addressed other grounds raised by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had established the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants with sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal also addressed other grounds raised by the Revenue.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT's directions under Section 263 were not tenable as the AO had made reasonable inquiries and the PCIT failed to apply his mind to the facts presented. The revisional order was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of lower yield, noting that similar additions were deleted in previous years and the AO's comparison was flawed. The Tribunal also dismissed the disallowance under Section 14A, as the assessee had not earned any exempt income and had sufficient interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made under Section 68 as the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants with sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's legal objection regarding the jurisdiction under Section 153A for unabated assessments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO had not brought forth clinching material to prove the share capital was the assessee's undisclosed income. The CIT(A) had correctly reversed the AO's additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO had not brought forth clinching material to prove the share capital was the assessee's undisclosed income. The CIT(A) had correctly reversed the AO's additions.