ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that since the same income had already been taxed on a substantive basis in the hands of the buyer, it could not be taxed again in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed.

The Tribunal found no basis for disallowing interest paid on unsecured loans, stating that advancing loans for land purchase is an ongoing business activity. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue failed to point out any non-business purpose for these advances.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest was not justified as the interest rate paid was comparable to market rates and had been accepted in previous years. Similarly, the car lease payment was also allowed as similar payments were accepted in prior assessments.

The Tribunal held that since the employees' contributions to ESI and PF were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on similar facts.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, are applicable prospectively. Therefore, the disallowance made on the basis of these amendments for the assessment year 2019-20 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal on merits, finding no basis for adding unaccounted investment. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was treated as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to point out any specific infirmity in the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the claim allowed by the Assessing Officer was supported by facts and evidence, and the PCIT's suspicion was not sufficient grounds for revision.

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, employee's contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.

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, employee's contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.

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, employee's contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.

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, employee's contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.

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, employee's contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.

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, employee's contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's directives. The appeal was admitted for hearing on its merits.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn since the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeal infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective. Therefore, employee's contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective. Therefore, employee's contribution to PF and ESI deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is allowable as a deduction.

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. Deposits made before the due date of filing the return are allowable expenses.

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, employee's contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that while the Rajasthan High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 234E, the Karnataka High Court clarified that the AO did not have the power to charge this fee prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment was prospective. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to determine the exact dates of filing and processing of returns.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 198 days in filing the appeal was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was passed ex-parte without providing the assessee with a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard, which violates the principles of natural justice ('audi alteram partem'). The Tribunal noted that while a show-cause notice was issued, it did not explicitly state that a hearing notice was served. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and remanded the case back to the PCIT to be adjudicated afresh after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) on interest-free advances needs to be verified by the AO based on the availability of own funds. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was also found to be without basis and was restored to the AO for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the main appeals against the orders passed under section 153A. The assessee was permitted to raise all grounds relating to the validity of the section 154 order.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was a lessee and responsible for maintenance and repairs under the lease deed, the expenses incurred to restore the leased property to its original condition after the fire were revenue in nature. No new asset was created.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have examined the exemption documents submitted at the appellate stage, especially when Supreme Court decisions supporting the assessee's claim were brought to his notice. The CIT(A) cannot discard such documents merely because they were not part of the initial return.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be computed on the remaining investments after considering the extent of own funds available. The enhancement by the CIT(A) regarding interest disallowance was set aside.

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 this basis for the assessment year 2019-20 was incorrect.

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

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

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made on this basis was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the admission of additional evidence was justified as the AO had an opportunity to examine them. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was also upheld as no adverse findings were reported by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the admission of additional evidence was justified as the AO had an opportunity to examine them. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was also upheld as no adverse findings were reported by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was squarely covered by a prior order of the same bench, which had set aside the penalty and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.

The tribunal noted that the revenue had no objection to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 for the assessment year 2019-20 was not sustainable.