ITAT Amritsar Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening were not properly formed and lacked a live link with the material available. There was also a discrepancy between the reasons recorded and the actual additions made.

The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- was received through a sub-agent for college fees in foreign institutions, which was part of the assessee's regular business activities. Therefore, the cash deposit was explained under Section 68 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 148 without proper verification of facts and without a clear nexus between the document and the formation of belief. The reasons recorded for reopening were considered erroneous.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the disallowance of foreign travel expenses, finding that the assessee failed to provide conclusive evidence for their business purpose. However, it reduced the disallowance on vehicle and telephone expenses from 20% to 10% after considering the assessee's circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, which clarified the treatment of employee contributions, are applicable only from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question (prior to AY 2021-22), disallowances for late payments of employee contributions to PF and ESI are not sustainable if paid before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, which clarified the treatment of employee contributions, are applicable only from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question (prior to AY 2021-22), disallowances for late payments of employee contributions to PF and ESI are not sustainable if paid before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, which clarified the treatment of employee contributions, are applicable only from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question (prior to AY 2021-22), disallowances for late payments of employee contributions to PF and ESI are not sustainable if paid before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had raised objections regarding the improper service of the Section 148 notice before the AO. However, the 'order sheet' entries did not reflect the filing of these specific objections. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to verify if these letters were indeed filed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed Form 10 during assessment proceedings and that the accumulated funds were invested in specified modes as per the balance sheet. It further noted that excess expenditure from earlier years could be set off against subsequent years' income under section 11.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the condonation application. The Tribunal noted that the delay was due to a mistake by the counsel's office, which should not penalize the assessee, and that similar delays were condoned in the previous year.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard and without appreciating the facts. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had contravened Section 269SS by accepting cash loans and Section 269T by repaying a part of the loan in cash. The penalties imposed under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment in the individual status was illegal and void ab initio. The ancestral property was owned by the HUF, and the AO had changed his opinion without proper justification.

The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed made adequate inquiries and verified the source of the cash deposits to his satisfaction. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had contravened Section 269SS by accepting cash loans and Section 269T by repaying a part of the loan in cash. The penalties imposed under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid because the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted mechanically without proper application of mind by the approving authority. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to put the assessee on notice regarding the specific default for which penalty proceedings were initiated. This failure to specify the charge renders the penalty order invalid.

The Tribunal held that payments made to State Government undertakings, which are considered an arm of the State, in legal tender (Indian currency) are covered by the exception in Rule 6DD(b). Therefore, these payments are not liable for disallowance under Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal held that the 'agreement to sell' was a 'dumb document' and vacated the addition of long-term capital gains. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed on the same premise.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid because the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted mechanically by the Principal CIT without proper application of mind. Therefore, the assessment framed based on this invalid reopening is quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without valid jurisdiction because the notice under Section 148 was not properly served on the assessee, and the reasons recorded for reopening were not supplied despite requests. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment order. It found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated while another reassessment for the same year was pending and that the sanction for reopening was granted mechanically by the Principal Commissioner without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on the grant-in-aid deposited in FDRs is taxable revenue income. The interest paid on the grant was not deductible under Section 57(iii) as it was not incurred for the purpose of earning the interest income.

The Tribunal held that interest earned from commercial banks by a co-operative society is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) as it is not income from carrying on the business of banking or from investments with another co-operative society. Such income is taxable under Section 56 as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the 'agreement to sell' was a 'dumb document' and vacated the addition of long-term capital gains. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed on the same premise.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). It found that the assessee had selectively complied with notices and failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the cash deposits. The Tribunal also held that mentioning a wrong section in the assessment order does not invalidate the addition if the facts justify it and the assessee is not prejudiced.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law as it was passed on grounds different from those mentioned in the show cause notice. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT initiated proceedings based on the assessee indulging in banking business but passed the order by stating that the principle of mutuality was missing and interest on funds with HDFC Bank was not exempt.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 was unsustainable as it was framed without valid service of notice under Section 148. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) also could not survive.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to obtain the requisite sanction from the Principal CIT as contemplated under Section 151 of the Act before issuing the notice for reopening. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 79,50,000 as unexplained income. The assessee's conflicting claims and lack of documentary evidence to substantiate the nature and source of the deposit were not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 was unsustainable as it was framed without valid service of notice under Section 148. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) also could not survive.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to ESI and PF was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. It further held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) were prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's counsel to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions paid before the return filing due date was incorrect, as the relevant amendments were prospective. It also directed verification of GST payment treatment and allowed the claim for CGST/SGST payments as business expenses.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarifies the disallowance for delayed employee's contribution, is applicable prospectively from April 1, 2021. Therefore, it does not apply to the assessment year 2019-20. The deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was sustained.

The Tribunal held that disallowances for late payment of employees' contribution to EPF and ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be made under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that disallowances for late payment of employees' contribution to EPF and ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be made under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that disallowances for late payment of employees' contribution to EPF and ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be made under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that disallowances for late payment of employees' contribution to EPF and ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be made under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that disallowances for late payment of employees' contribution to EPF and ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be made under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.