ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiries and verified the sources of cash deposits, treating them as turnover. The Pr.CIT's view of inadequate inquiry was not sufficient grounds for revision under Section 263. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits from agricultural income were explained as the assessee managed the family's agricultural operations. The land sale advances were also explained by vendor confirmation and a rectified sale deed, which the AO failed to disprove.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal approach to substantial justice. It held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in another co-operative society (including a co-operative bank) is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that a trust can have mixed objects of religious and charitable nature and that carrying out activities is not a mandatory prerequisite for registration; proposed activities are also considered. Therefore, the CIT's rejection grounds were not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal approach to substantial justice. It held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in another co-operative society (including a co-operative bank) is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging that the tax dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and accepted by both the assessee and the department.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was granted with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise in the future.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arose.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal held that since the tax dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and accepted by the Principal Commissioner, the revenue's appeal became infructuous. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections also became infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging that the tax dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal also noted that the appeal could be recalled if the settlement certificate was withdrawn in the future.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was granted with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise in the future.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was granted with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise in the future.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the case ex-parte without considering the submissions and documents filed by the assessee. The order was passed in a cryptic manner without addressing the merits of the case.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging that the tax dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and accepted by the department. The appeal can be recalled if the settlement certificate is withdrawn.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging that the tax dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and accepted by both the assessee and the department. The tribunal also noted that the appeal could be recalled if the settlement certificate was withdrawn.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and, with no objection from the Revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Since the Department had issued Form No. 3, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they were no longer interested in pursuing them. The Departmental Representative raised no objection to this request.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the department did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they were no longer interested in pursuing them. The Departmental Representative raised no objection to this request.

The Tribunal noted that the tax dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and accepted by the department. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue Department's appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the department issuing the relevant form.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The department did not object to this course of action.

The Tribunal found no material to contradict the CIT(A)'s conclusion that while the assessee discharged the onus for Rs. 5.00 lakhs, they failed to satisfactorily explain the transaction of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. Therefore, the partial confirmation of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging that the tax dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and accepted by the department. The appeal can be recalled if the settlement certificate is withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly analyze the comparable case cited by the assessee and affirmed the 8% estimation without sufficient material. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the estimation at 3.6% based on the comparable case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, leading to the deemed withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision to recall the order if the certificate is later withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal noted that the tax dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and accepted by the Principal Commissioner. Therefore, the departmental appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging that the tax dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and accepted by the department. The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal.

The tribunal noted that the tax dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, with the department not objecting to the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that upon issuance of Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision to recall the order if the certificate is later withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal also noted that the appeal could be recalled if the settlement certificate was later withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and, in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, allowed the prayer. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.