ITAT Surat Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submissions, noting that the assessee submitted crucial documents on the date of the assessment order, leaving no opportunity for the AO to verify them. The CIT(A) also did not obtain a remand report. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision on a similar issue was binding. As an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's judgment.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision on a similar issue was binding. As an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's judgment.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that while statements recorded during a survey are not admissible on oath, the assessee's conduct, including paying advance tax and the endorsement by other partners and their CA, indicated the disclosure was acted upon. The inconsistent stands taken by the assessee did not inspire confidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it did not adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merit. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute with the Department under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and had received Form-3. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions for claiming bad debts under Section 36(2) as the notional income was not offered in earlier years. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not in the money lending business, and the intercorporate deposits were not made in the course of business.

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 Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.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 held that the PCIT's order was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the two-year period prescribed under Section 263(2). Furthermore, on merits, the Tribunal found that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income, which was already met by the original disallowance.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and had received Form-3. The assessee's representative prayed for withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's lack of objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal filed by the assessee's authorized representative. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's applications and the Revenue's no objection. It was held that since the dispute was settled under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's applications and the Revenue's no objection. It was held that since the dispute was settled under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's applications and the Revenue's no objection. It was held that since the dispute was settled under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's applications and the Revenue's no objection. It was held that since the dispute was settled under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's applications and the Revenue's no objection. It was held that since the dispute was settled under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The revenue had no objection.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and had received a certificate. The Revenue had no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Form-3 certificate from the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was allowed to withdraw its appeal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the submission of the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's submission. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, including cash flow statements and income tax returns of herself and her husband, which were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. The bank account in question was a joint account with her husband, whose agricultural income was not disputed.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application for settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and the revenue's submission to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the submission of the Revenue. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn due to the settlement of the dispute under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the revenue's submission. Both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee firm was unjustified because the firm did not exist during the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted the addition on this ground.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's submission. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the revenue's submission. Both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that if the foreign recipients have no business connection in India and their income is not taxable in India, there is no obligation to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee applied for withdrawal of the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's submission. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, 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 as per their submission. The appeal was consequently 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 considered the assessee's submission of settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The request to keep the appeal in abeyance was declined.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal due to settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The request to keep the appeal in abeyance was declined.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair and proper opportunity to present its case by either the AO or the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair and proper opportunity to present its case by either the AO or the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries and taken a reasonable view, thus the assessment order was not erroneous. The revision under section 263 was not justified as the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue were not met.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.