ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the death of the assessee's previous counsel and the subsequent confusion. It also condoned the 4-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made on this basis for the impugned assessment year is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective. Since the EPF/ESI payments were made within the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was not sustainable as the payment was made before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the applicability of amended Rule 8D based on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Essar Teleholdings Ltd. However, for the issue of disallowance of administrative expenditure, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of factual similarities with previous years.

The tribunal held that an assessee should not suffer due to the mistake of an auditor. It found that the CIT(A) had not given a specific finding on the nature of the disallowed interest.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not clarificatory. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B are prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2021-2022 onwards. Therefore, for the Assessment Year 2019-20, if the payment was made before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that the issue of charging interest on partners' capital was debatable, making the rectification under Section 154 unjustified. Furthermore, the AO's action of reducing the Section 80IC deduction without a corresponding adjustment to the profit was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made based on these amendments for the assessment year 2017-18 was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment beyond four years was invalid because the assessee had not concealed any material facts. The EDC was disclosed as a liability, and the Assessing Officer's interpretation of it as income was not based on any new material fact.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment beyond four years was invalid because the assessee had not concealed any material facts. The EDC was disclosed as a liability, and the Assessing Officer's interpretation of it as income was not based on any new material fact.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment beyond four years was invalid because the assessee had not concealed any material facts. The EDC was disclosed as a liability, and the Assessing Officer's interpretation of it as income was not based on any new material fact.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the primary issue of denial of exemption under Section 11, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the assessee society was not indulging in charitable activities. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had leased out its medical facility for 99 years and had virtually no substantial control over it, thus not carrying out its stated charitable activity of running a medical college and hospital. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the assessee's contention of funding medical projects to be incorrect. It relied on the Memorandum of Understanding with Baba Farid University, which stipulated a revenue-sharing arrangement (60:40 or 80:20 of net receipts), indicating a commercial transaction rather than charitable funding. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was earning income from non-charitable activities, such as investments and commercial transactions, and was therefore not entitled to exemption under Section 11. Consequently, the grounds of appeal were dismissed. The additional grounds raised by the assessee were rendered infructuous as they were relevant only if the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee is entitled to claim 100% deduction under Section 80IC even after the initial five years if substantial expansion is undertaken, as per the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Tribunal held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made based on this amendment for the assessment year 2018-19 was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, and that the AO had conducted inquiries. The revisional notice was also issued beyond the limitation period.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the case under Section 147 were not based on sufficient information or tangible material, leading to a lack of belief of escapement of income. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 was invalid, making the subsequent revisionary order under Section 263 unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act is applicable prospectively. Therefore, the disallowance made on the strength of this amendment for the assessment year 2018-19 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is applicable prospectively. Therefore, the disallowance made on the strength of this amendment for AY 2019-20 cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's finding of inadequate inquiry by the AO was contrary to the evidence on record. The AO had conducted inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanations, and the PCIT's order was not in accordance with settled legal principles.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of undisclosed capital gain, finding that it was based solely on an oral statement and contradicted by a registered sale deed. The addition on account of investment in LED was also deleted as the item was not recovered during search and an affidavit supported the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, effected by the Finance Act, 2021, are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Therefore, the disallowance for late ESI/PF payments made before the return filing date for AY 2018-19 cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made based on these amendments for the assessment year 2017-18 was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, effected by the Finance Act, 2021, are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Therefore, the disallowance for late ESI/PF payments made before the return filing date for AY 2018-19 cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. The contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.