Loading ITAT cases…
197 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was covered by the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods due to COVID-19. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the IT Act, is eligible for deduction. The recent amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the assessee is entitled to deduction if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land, which was not situated within a specified distance from a municipality and was used for agricultural operations, could not be considered an adventure in the nature of trade. Therefore, the income arising from such sale was to be treated as agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations for a building fund are capital receipts. It also noted that the AO failed to provide evidence for treating donations as revenue or for the alleged local inquiries, thus violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations for a building fund are capital receipts. It also noted that the AO failed to provide evidence for treating donations as revenue or for the alleged local inquiries, thus violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal ruled on several comparable companies, excluding some based on functional dissimilarity and other criteria. It also addressed the exclusion of telecommunication expenses and the inclusion of interest income for Section 10A deduction, largely in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled on several comparable companies, excluding some based on functional dissimilarity and other criteria. It also addressed the exclusion of telecommunication expenses and the inclusion of interest income for Section 10A deduction, largely in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned. For the Section 43B disallowance, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification of payment evidence.
The Tribunal held that the TPO/DRP did not properly analyze several issues, including comparable selection, forex fluctuations, and depreciation. It also allowed working capital adjustments and restricted TP adjustments to AE transactions.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations for a building fund are capital receipts. It also noted that the AO failed to provide evidence for treating donations as revenue or for the alleged local inquiries, thus violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal as the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not admitted.
The Tribunal held that the diary jottings and retrieved data, not being part of regular books of account and lacking corroborative evidence or cross-examination opportunities, were insufficient to sustain the addition. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the principal amount of loan taken for business or trading activity, upon waiver by the creditor, constitutes income chargeable to tax. However, if the loan was utilized for acquiring a capital asset, its waiver would not be taxable.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded during survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act have no evidentiary value for making additions unless supported by corroborative material. The addition of Rs. 65,50,000/- was deleted due to lack of such material.
The Tribunal held that capital gains arising from the sale of land cannot be treated as short-term capital gains, even if it was part of a block of assets including depreciable assets. Therefore, it must be assessed as long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the assessee needs to furnish details of all tax payments to the AO for verification. The AO is then required to grant due credit for these payments and pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) are not retrospective and do not apply to the assessment years in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal ruled that deductions for employee contributions to PF and ESI are allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is not sustainable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on the erroneous presumption that the assessee had not paid admitted tax, as no return of income was filed. The matter is restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to cooperate, decided to provide a fresh opportunity for the assessee to present its case in the interest of natural justice. This was done by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the issues back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) did not adequately address the source of investment or the difference in sale consideration. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision after obtaining a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is not sustainable if the payments are made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) did not adequately address the source of investment or the difference in sale consideration. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision after obtaining a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) are not retrospective and do not apply to the assessment years in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal ruled that deductions for employee contributions to PF and ESI are allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not retrospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, payments made before the Section 139(1) due date are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee maintained regular books of accounts and the cash deposits were out of book balances, including pigmy collections shown as liability. Therefore, the AO was incorrect in treating these deposits as revenue receipts.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is not sustainable if the payments are made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not retrospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, payments made before the Section 139(1) due date are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction for employees' contribution to PF and ESI if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect. The deduction is allowable if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153C was quashed.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding the nexus between debenture issuance and loans advanced, remitting the issue of debenture interest disallowance to the AO. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of business loss, finding that the business was not set up and the expenses were pre-operative.
The Tribunal, following its own earlier order, directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A on similar lines as in the previous assessment year. The disallowance of bad debts was also to be re-examined in light of the High Court's observations.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to explain the loan creditors. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the period of realization of 60 days, as agreed in the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) for subsequent years, should also be considered for the assessment year under appeal, which falls within the rollback period. The weighted average realization period was found to be within this limit.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 8,04,000 was not sustainable as the bank account belonged to an individual, not the HUF. The addition of Rs. 5,70,000 was set aside for fresh examination by the AO, considering the assessee's cash flow statement.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the deduction is allowable if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing the principle of advancing substantial justice over technical considerations. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing the principle of advancing substantial justice over technical considerations. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the addition related to the 'Project Spirit Report' and restored the issue to the AO for proper examination. It also directed the AO to calculate interest under Section 234C on the returned income and allowed the verification of TDS credit. However, it disallowed the deduction of education cess.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B was held to be prospective, not retrospective.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow interest expenditure on the portion of the hotel completed and put to use earlier, and to capitalize interest for the remaining construction period. The Tribunal directed the assessee to provide details to the AO for effectuating the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present details and explanations for the additions. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.