ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — March 2022

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal could not be adjudicated due to the death of the assessee and the inability to substitute the legal heir. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after taking appropriate action.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made requisite inquiries and applied his mind to the issues. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was not justified as it was based on an audit objection and not a lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in not considering the assessee's balance sheets showing sufficient cash-in-hand to explain the deposits. It also applied the principle of consistency regarding the tuition income, which was accepted in earlier and later years.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in not considering the assessee's balance sheets showing sufficient cash-in-hand to explain the deposits. It also applied the principle of consistency regarding the tuition income, which was accepted in earlier and later years.

The Tribunal found that the CIT's order was passed without proper application of mind and denied natural justice to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

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

The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years where similar line/bay charges were held to be revenue in nature. Therefore, the impugned expenditure was directed to be treated as revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) was incorrect in rejecting the application. The objects of the trust were not predominantly religious, and the assessee was not obligated to appeal previous rejections, having the option to file a fresh application.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits was not justified as the difference in valuation was less than 10% and local PWD rates should have been applied. The addition on account of unexplained investment in showroom construction was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and applied his mind to the issue. The PCIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, and also failed to conduct independent inquiries himself. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits was not justified as the difference in valuation was less than 10% and local PWD rates should have been applied. The addition on account of unexplained investment in showroom construction was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2018-19 is not sustainable as the deposit was made before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance of ESI and PF contributions, which were deposited before the return filing due date, is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and applied due diligence in assessing the claims for long-term capital gains, short-term capital gains, exemptions, deductions, and unsecured loans. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary orders under Section 263 were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and applied due diligence in assessing the claims for long-term capital gains, short-term capital gains, exemptions, deductions, and unsecured loans. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary orders under Section 263 were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted adequate inquiries regarding unsecured loans and refining loss, and the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was found to be bad in law, and the revisionary proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and applied due diligence in assessing the claims for long-term capital gains, short-term capital gains, exemptions, deductions, and unsecured loans. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary orders under Section 263 were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made for late deposit of employees' contribution to ESI & PF is not sustainable if the deposit is made before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B is not permissible if the employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before filing the return of income, following earlier ITAT decisions.

The tribunal held that the NFAC should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and establish its bona fides before dismissing the appeal. The matter was restored to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the pandemic's impact. It found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notices and without deciding the issues on merit.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view after considering the available information and documents. The PCIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as he did not conduct his own inquiry to establish the assessment order was erroneous.

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to EPF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that a one-to-one nexus between each loan taken and loan advanced is not required when the assessee is engaged in the activity of taking and giving loans on interest and has earned net positive interest income. The Tribunal followed a previous order with identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. The disallowance made for late deposit of employees' contribution, when deposited before the due date of filing the return, is directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC was incorrect. It ruled that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance could be made. 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 compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land under the RFCTLARR Act is exempt from income tax, as clarified by CBDT Circular No. 36/2016. This exemption applies even if there is no specific provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. Following previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts, it was ruled that if employee's contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal found a contradiction in the CIT(A)'s order, which stated that no written submissions were filed while also mentioning that the assessee's explanation was considered and rejected. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner failed to demonstrate that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous, as no specific material was brought on record to show that the AO did not verify certain vouchers or made incorrect assumptions of facts or law.

The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) is to be deleted. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on similar facts.

The Tribunal held that the surrender was made on a mistaken belief of facts and law, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based solely on the statement of the Director and employees, ignoring the voluminous evidence presented by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner failed to demonstrate that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous, as no specific material was brought on record to show that the AO did not verify certain vouchers or made incorrect assumptions of facts or law.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, the disallowance made for late deposit of employees' contribution, when paid before the return filing due date, is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 without proper application of mind and without pointing out any specific error in the Assessing Officer's order. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner failed to demonstrate that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous, as no specific material was brought on record to show that the AO did not verify certain vouchers or made incorrect assumptions of facts or law.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner failed to demonstrate that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous, as no specific material was brought on record to show that the AO did not verify certain vouchers or made incorrect assumptions of facts or law.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is not permissible if the employee contributions to EPF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, even if paid after the statutory due dates. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that since the ESI and EPF contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on this issue.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the employee's contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on identical issues.

The Tribunal held that since the ESI and EPF contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on this issue.