Loading ITAT cases…
469 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, declining to interfere with the deletion of disallowances. It found that the interest liability was crystallized, payments to societies were purchases, and prior period expenses were allowable as they crystallized in the current year.
The Tribunal held that registration under Section 12AA is a prerequisite for obtaining approval under Section 80G. Therefore, the assessee must first obtain Section 12AA registration before reapplying for Section 80G approval.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not withdraw the exemption under Section 154 as it was allowed in a scrutiny assessment (Section 143(3)) and there was no apparent mistake. The Tribunal also noted that the sale consideration and possession were transferred within the stipulated period, with only a minor delay in registration due to unavoidable circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 on an issue beyond the limited scrutiny scope. The Assessing Officer had properly examined the flagged issue, and the Pr. CIT could not direct conversion to complete scrutiny post-assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 on an issue beyond the limited scrutiny scope. The Assessing Officer had properly examined the flagged issue, and the Pr. CIT could not direct conversion to complete scrutiny post-assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee owned agricultural land and had a history of accepted agricultural income in past assessments. Previous inquiries had confirmed the agricultural operations, particularly the farming of Menthol.
The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 148 was impermissible as it was based on a change of opinion. The issue was already examined and explained by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings, and no new material was brought on record. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 148 were quashed.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd., held that the disallowance for delayed deposit of employee contributions to EPF & ESI was incorrect. The legislative intent is to allow expenditure only upon actual payment.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals on merits after considering all evidence and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed deposit of employee contributions to PF and ESI is not sustainable. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision which held that belated payments are not to be treated as deemed income.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the interest rate paid was excessive or unreasonable considering the fair market value of unsecured loans. Bank loans, though at a lower rate, are secured and involve different terms.
The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd., holding that belated payment of employees' contribution to EPF & ESI should not be treated as deemed income. The disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to EPF & ESI is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed deposit of employee's PF and ESI contributions is covered by the Delhi High Court judgment in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed deposit of employee contributions to PF and ESI is not sustainable. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision which held that belated payments are not to be treated as deemed income.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to EPF & ESI is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals on merits after considering all evidence and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals on merits after considering all evidence and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.