ITAT Surat Judgments — December 2020

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed held the property for more than 36 months based on substantial payment and possession taken on 29.09.2006, entitling them to long-term capital gains. The deduction under Section 54F was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. The Revenue had no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's no objection. The assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal and the Departmental Representative's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and allowed them to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee applied to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn, as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and allowed it. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for premium paid on investment amortized, following its own previous decisions. For MICR charges, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the recipient (SBI) had offered the income for taxation, and if so, to delete the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the AO's initial premise for valuation was erroneous as the closing stock comprised of 'scrap' and not 'EP Grade' material. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the issue was revenue neutral as the tax rate remained the same for both years, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme, and the revenue had no objection.

The assessee sought withdrawal of both appeals to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee sought withdrawal of both appeals to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO, as the issue of sales promotion expenses was already examined during the original assessment. Therefore, all subsequent actions were void.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) as it was not passed on merits. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.