ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the source of deposits. The PCIT's revisionary order was found to be without justification, as the PCIT did not conduct further inquiry himself to establish the assessment order was erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) cannot be made for the assessment year 2019-20.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing. In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. The issues regarding advertisement expenses and non-charging of interest were decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years and the principle of consistency was applied. The disallowance under Section 14A was also correctly restricted to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits to be improbable and lacking corroboration for both the source and destination of the funds.

The Tribunal held that the AO had failed to examine the implications of cash payments made in contravention of Section 40A(3) of the Act. However, regarding the confirmation of balances with Rana Wines, the Tribunal found that the accounts tallied and no discrepancies were highlighted. Therefore, the AO's order was set aside for limited examination of Section 40A(3) implications.

The Tribunal held that for granting registration under Section 12AA, the CIT(E) only needs to verify if the trust's objects are charitable and its activities are genuine. Other concerns, like compliance with the Companies Act or specific fund application, fall under the Assessing Officer's purview during assessment.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B is not permissible if the employee's contribution to ESI and PF is deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, even if it's after the due date under the respective statutes.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value of compensation and thus part of the enhanced compensation. Therefore, it is not taxable under Section 56 as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries, and the PCIT failed to conduct his own inquiry to establish the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper and adequate inquiries into the labor and wages payable, especially considering the suspicious nature of cash payments and lack of supporting documentation. Therefore, the assessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground as it went to the root of the matter and did not require further investigation. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B of the Act. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal noted that the relevant documents might not have been received by the department and, therefore, decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(Exemptions). The CIT(Exemptions) is directed to pass an order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit all required documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal restored the file to the NFAC with a direction to the assessee to demonstrate the reason for the delay with cogent evidence, and if found condonable, the appeal would be heard on merits.

The Tribunal held that the sale of electricity at Rs. 6.72 per unit was at arm's length and no adjustment was required. Regarding steam, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case and deleted the addition, holding that no transfer pricing adjustment was necessary.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction, following previous judgments. It also held that disallowing the same amount in two assessment years results in double taxation, directing its deletion.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) is not permissible if the employee contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, following earlier precedents.

The Tribunal held that the impugned long-term capital gains were already surrendered and taxed in the hands of the partnership firm, M/s Rohit Traders, before the Settlement Commission. Therefore, taxing the same income again in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the impugned long-term capital gains were already surrendered and taxed in the hands of the partnership firm, M/s Rohit Traders, before the Settlement Commission. Therefore, taxing the same income again in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that if ESI and EPF contributions 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 read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, which was prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income was allowable as a deduction. The disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving that the cash was not recorded in the assessee's books. The Tribunal found that a significant portion of the cash was accepted by the AO as non-operational receipts duly accounted for. The rejection of operational receipts was not supported by independent findings.

The Tribunal held that disallowances for late payments of employees' ESI & PF contributions, when paid before the due date of 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 Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on identical issues.

The Tribunal held that disallowances for late payments of employees' ESI & PF contributions, when paid before the due date of 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 Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on identical issues.