ITAT Varanasi Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that the existence of the second floor at the time of sale was evident from the sale deed and its accompanying site plan. The Assessing Officer had not conducted any independent inquiry to disprove the assessee's claim of construction costs.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal noted the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the acceptance of the declaration by the designated authority. The appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for de novo consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce all necessary documents and evidence to substantiate its claims.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter back for de novo consideration. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to provide a proper opportunity of hearing and decide the application afresh based on merits and evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, finding it unsustainable as it was not decided on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the issues concerning Rs. 10 lacs raised as loans from Mr. Jitender Kumar and Mr. Jehangir Alam. The CIT(A) is directed to admit and adjudicate all explanations and evidence on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the VSVS scheme, rendering the appeal infructuous. The department had no objection to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove business exigency or expediency for making cash payments, especially since regular payments were made through cheques. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that if the employee's share of PF/ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the assessee is entitled to a deduction. The disallowance/addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal proceedings can continue after the death of the assessee, provided the legal representatives file a revised Form No. 36. The appeal shall not abate.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving that the expenses were incurred for business purposes. In the absence of details and justification, disallowance was justified, and the CIT(A) had already provided partial relief.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to cumulatively satisfy the conditions stipulated under Section 80IA(2) for claiming the deduction. Exemption provisions are to be strictly construed, and the onus was on the assessee to prove compliance, which it failed to do.

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be a non-speaking order and unsustainable. The tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that if the employee's share of PF/ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the assessee is entitled to a deduction. The disallowance/addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the tax dispute for the assessment year 2015-16 was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal proceedings can continue after the death of the assessee, provided the legal representatives file a revised Form No. 36. The appeal shall not abate.

The assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the subsequent assessment order. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw their appeal and dismissed the Department's cross-appeal as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Parties retain liberty to revive appeals if the settlement is found incomplete.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's tax dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, as evidenced by Form No. 5. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. Both parties agreed that the case should be restored to the CIT(E) for a de novo consideration of the application.