Loading ITAT cases…
241 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 to Section 14A is prospective. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D is permissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, and the AO had not established that interest-bearing funds were used for investments yielding exempt income. Therefore, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, and the AO had not established that interest-bearing funds were used for investments yielding exempt income. Therefore, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had successfully availed the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had successfully availed the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of 10% commission was unsustainable in law. It noted that the commission agents had offered income in their returns, provided affidavits, and the payments were supported by board resolutions and agreements.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was permitted to deposit demonetized currency until December 31, 2016, and the lower authorities overlooked this fact. The addition of Rs. 46,000 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, due to the absence of enabling provisions. The levy of late fee in this case was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, due to the absence of enabling provisions. The levy of late fee in this case was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, employee contributions to PF and ESI deposited before the due date of filing the income-tax return are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that payments made towards employees' contribution to PF & ESI, even if beyond the due date specified under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the return of income, are allowable deductions. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are deductible. The AO was directed to delete the additions if the payments were made within the return filing due date.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A at that time. The late fees charged were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence before lower authorities, set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to substantiate their stand.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income and verify if the additions were part of the scheme settlement. If Form-5 was in order, the demand arising from settled additions was to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal based on a misunderstanding of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme's applicability. The matter was therefore set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
While acknowledging the assessee's negligence, the Tribunal directed the Principal Commissioner to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, payments made within the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the assessee had only deposited a small amount of demonetized currency and that the deposits during the demonetization period were significantly lower compared to the previous year. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had furnished supporting documents for sales.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for adjudication on merits. This was done to uphold the principles of natural justice and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2017-18 is not sustainable.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, citing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's books of accounts were not faulted, the explanation for the dwindling profit rate was not plausible. However, the estimated addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- was considered high.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Payments made within the due date for filing the income tax return, even if after the due date under the respective PF/ESI Acts, are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, payments made beyond the due date specified under the respective acts but within the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal found that the delay was indeed less than what the CIT(A) noted and was occasioned by the assessee pursuing other remedies. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication, citing the principle of natural justice. The assessee will be given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, due to the absence of enabling provisions. The levy of late fee in this case was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A at that time. The late fees charged were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to consider the judgment of the Special CBI Court. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after examining the CBI court's judgment.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to consider the judgment of the Special CBI Court. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after examining the CBI court's judgment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to the difference in work-in-progress and the suspense account balance, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning to be correct. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of prior period expenses and disallowance for non-deduction of TDS.
The tribunal noted that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P for cooperative societies, especially concerning loans to associate members and interest income from deposits, is a complex issue. The specific nature of the banks where the assessee deposited funds was not clear.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases were made in the assessee's name, he is automatically entitled to credit for the TCS deducted on those purchases. However, the estimation of profit at 3.5% by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld due to the lack of supporting evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue of limitation, which was raised before both the AO and the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on the limitation issue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the interest on CCDs was allowable as the assessee had provided corrected evidence and the bank confirmed the nature of the funds. The Tribunal also found that the assessee was entitled to depreciation as the plant and machinery were put to use before the relevant date, supported by various evidences.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in substituting the actual consideration received for the sale of shares. It also directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the cost of acquisition of shares and re-examine the additions made under sections 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) and 50C, and the disallowances of exemptions under sections 54 and 54F, after providing the assessee with further opportunities.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to consider the judgment of the Special CBI Court. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after examining the CBI court's judgment.
The Tribunal held that the MTM loss on forward contracts should be allowed as a deduction, as the assessee reversed the loss in the subsequent year and followed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Woodward Governor India Private Limited. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of comparable selection back to the TPO/AO for fresh examination.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as a consequential order under Section 143(3) had been passed accepting the original returned income. The Revenue did not oppose this request.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue of limitation, which was raised before both the AO and the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on the limitation issue.
The Tribunal held that timely payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is necessary for deduction. Following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. CIT, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO issuing a demand notice at the draft assessment stage, instead of the final order stage, vitiated the assessment order. Consequently, the assessment order was declared null and void.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the portion of sales tax provision already disallowed by the assessee. For the remaining amount, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, finding that vital issues regarding payment receipt and legal action were not considered. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the waiver of the loan, being a monetary receipt, does not fall under Section 28(iv) as it requires the benefit to be other than in the shape of money. The Supreme Court's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the portion of sales tax provision already disallowed by the assessee. For the remaining amount, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.