ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — December 2021

The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT's circular regarding revised monetary limits for filing appeals, which the current appeal fell below.

The Tribunal held that interest paid by a partner on debit balance is a deductible expenditure, irrespective of how the withdrawn amount is utilized. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was based on a misconstruction of facts.

The Tribunal held that interest paid by a partner on debit balance is a deductible expenditure, irrespective of how the withdrawn amount is utilized. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was based on a misconstruction of facts.

The Tribunal held that interest paid by a partner on debit balance is a deductible expenditure, irrespective of how the withdrawn amount is utilized. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was based on a misconstruction of facts.

The Tribunal held that the deposit of Rs. 8 lacs was from the sale proceeds of the assessee's plot. Considering the consistent explanation and unrebutted facts, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT passed the order ex-parte and the assessee's inability to furnish documents was due to being COVID-19 positive. The case was set aside to the PCIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid after the due date under the respective Acts but before filing the return of income under Section 139(1), it cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid after the due date under the respective Acts but before filing the return of income under Section 139(1), it cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that disallowances made on account of delayed deposit of employee contributions to ESI and EPF, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that disallowances made on account of delayed deposit of employee contributions to ESI and EPF, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's bonafide belief that the appeal was filed by his counsel. On merits, the Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to furnish certificates from the payees regarding tax payment, setting aside the matter to the AO.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contributions to EPF and ESI are paid after the due date under the respective Acts but before filing the return of income under Section 139(1), they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. The disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of EPF and ESI dues paid after the due date under respective statutes but before filing the return of income under Section 139(1) cannot be made under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee contributions to ESI and PF, if 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 Act. The Tribunal followed its earlier coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that delayed payments of employees' contribution towards EPF/ESI, if made before the filing of the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's fresh order resulted in no addition to the assessee's income. Therefore, the assessee's appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not discussed the assessee's detailed reply and cash book, and had wrongly treated the entire bank deposits as sales. The Tribunal relied on a High Court judgment where similar additions based on suspicion were set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce relevant evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the advance was made in a different financial year than the one cited by the AO. The AO proceeded to reopen the assessment based on incorrect facts despite being provided with contrary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to lack of sufficient reasons and that the lower authorities failed to consider the detailed evidence provided by the assessee. The additions were therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that comparing the assessee's yield solely with the average yield on a government portal is not a justified criterion to reject the declared agricultural income. The Tribunal noted that similar agricultural income was accepted in earlier and subsequent assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer violated principles of natural justice by not supplying the reasons for reopening and preventing the assessee from filing objections. The sanction for reopening was also found to be mechanical.

The Tribunal held that if ESI and EPF contributions are paid after the due date under the respective statutes but before filing the return of income under Section 139(1), they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid after the due date under the respective Acts but before filing the return of income under Section 139(1), it cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to lack of sufficient reasons and that the lower authorities failed to consider the detailed evidence provided by the assessee. The additions were therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that if ESI and EPF contributions are paid after the due date under the respective statutes but before filing the return of income under Section 139(1), they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) wrongly exercised revisionary powers under Section 263. The Pr. CIT erred in assuming the assessee made the deposit and entered into the agreement to sell, when the explanation clearly pointed to the husband.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to ESI and PF is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), it cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) are prospective. Therefore, the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF paid before the due date of filing the return of income is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to sections 43B and 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made on this basis for the assessment year 2019-20 is 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 2018-19 was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that the rental income was business income, especially since it was offered as such in the preceding year and accepted by the AO. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

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

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act made by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, contributions paid by the due date of filing the return of income are allowable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as no valid notice under Section 148 was served on the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the deposits did not belong to the assessee and the addition under Section 269SS was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective. Following its own consistent rulings and jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the employees' contribution to ESI and PF paid by the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction.