Loading ITAT cases…
234 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) due to pending customs proceedings, and the CIT(A) did not discuss the merits. To ensure natural justice, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous as the relief claimed by the assessee was already granted. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to this.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passing an order on merits without condoning the delay, despite an affidavit explaining the reasons, was not correct. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
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 for AY 2019-20 was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable, even if paid beyond the statutory due dates of the PF/ESI Acts. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2018-19, the disallowance for employees' contribution to welfare funds paid before the due date of filing the return of income is not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, including Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, if the employees' contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions are paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable, even if paid after the due dates specified in the respective PF/ESI Acts. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, including Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, if the employees' contributions were paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI is paid before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) is prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution was paid before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction would be allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, if the employees' contributions were paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the deduction for employees' contribution to welfare funds is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition as there was no cessation of liability, and Section 41(1) was not applicable. However, interest income from fixed deposits was to be assessed separately.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution was paid before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction would be allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution was paid before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction would be allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions are paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable, even if paid after the due dates specified in the respective PF/ESI Acts. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F was not allowable as the conditions regarding deposit of unutilized capital gains and purchase of a single residential house were not met. The AO's disallowance of the deduction was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, particularly Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the deduction for employees' contribution to welfare funds is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the deduction for employees' contribution to welfare funds is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the reason for reopening, 'difference in sundry creditors balance', was vague and did not establish a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer's subsequent attempts to explain the reason were considered an attempt to substitute the original reasons.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim regarding a loan taken by demand draft needed verification. For other cash loans, the assessee's explanations and evidence were not properly presented before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the reopening was done beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and there was no recorded failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, the reopening was invalid. The assessment was quashed on this ground.
The Tribunal found that the issue of buyback of shares was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer and examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the revisional order passed by the PCIT was not justified as the conditions precedent for exercising such jurisdiction were not met.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee made payments by cheque and recorded purchases, they failed to prove the purchase orders, delivery, or transportation. Therefore, the addition was restricted to an estimated profit of 12.5% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits with necessary evidence. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) towards unexplained investments were upheld.
The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The condonation petition lacked specific details and supporting evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) accepted the assessee's business of buying and selling used cars, but failed to examine the claim that cash deposits were advances from customers. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper enquiries regarding the rental income and the claimed expenses. Therefore, the PCIT's order directing a reassessment was justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not dealing with the issues on merits and that the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 54 deduction, the investment in a new residential property must be made in the name of the assessee. While courts have allowed deductions when property is purchased in the name of a spouse or minor child due to clubbing provisions, this does not apply to a married daughter who is an independent individual.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order due to a lack of a speaking order and violation of natural justice principles, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution is paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment inserting Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions paid before the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions. The issue of gratuity provision was remanded for verification of inadvertent error.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, particularly Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the deduction for employees' contribution to welfare funds is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.