ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits were from prior cash withdrawals made for land purchase was plausible. The bank statements supported these withdrawals and subsequent deposits within a short period.

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance should be made. The amendment to Section 36(i)(va) was held to be prospective.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown the donation as income and utilized it for charitable purposes. In the absence of evidence from the Revenue that the donation was not taken as income or used for non-charitable purposes, and considering the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the donor's director, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear how many opportunities were given to the assessee by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal was of the view that the CIT(A) should have provided one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one final opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the matter on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., the Tribunal found the penalty not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio and bad in law due to the non-service of notice under Section 148. The Revenue failed to prove service of the notice in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act are prospective and apply from Assessment Year 2021-2022. Therefore, delayed payments of employee contributions to PF & ESI, if made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as deductions.

The Tribunal held that delayed payments of employee contributions to PF & ESI are allowable as deductions if paid before the due date of filing the income tax return. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, which restrict the deduction for employee's contribution to PF & ESI paid after the due date under the respective acts, are prospective and apply from Assessment Year 2021-22. Therefore, the disallowance for AY 2019-20 was not sustainable if the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal is hearing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which sustained a disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 50C.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the authorities below was not sustainable. Following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal ruled that delayed payments of employee's contribution to PF & ESI, if made before the due date of filing the income tax return, are allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, even if paid after the statutory due date. This position was based on various High Court judgments and Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, admitting additional evidence filed by the assessee. This evidence, including confirmations and ITRs from sellers of shares, was deemed essential for a thorough examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the application without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to submit required documents. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act by dismissing appeals without deciding on merits and also violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act by dismissing appeals without deciding on merits and also violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified this issue, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that tools, dies, and jigs are integral parts of the machinery used in manufacturing and therefore qualify as plant and machinery. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue had allowed similar claims in subsequent years for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) interpreted Rule 46A too narrowly and failed to consider the circumstances cited by the assessee for not producing evidence earlier. The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) to admit additional evidence and pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for the cash deposit addition and restored the issue to the AO for fresh verification. The addition for bank interest was confirmed as it was not controverted by the assessee. The issue of agricultural income belonging to an HUF was also restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented sales revenue, supported by sales registers and VAT returns, and that the Revenue had not provided any material to prove these sales were fictitious. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the contributions were deposited before the return filing date. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's PF/ESI contributions, when deposited before filing the return, should not be disallowed, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. Regarding the double taxation claim, the Tribunal directed verification by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and violated principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order without adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI, if deposited before filing the return of income, should not be disallowed, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Tribunal also restored the issue of incorrect tax rate application to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal decided the appeal based on available records due to the assessee's non-appearance. The CIT(A) had upheld the additions made by the AO, including the addition on account of the sale of immovable property.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order itself was quashed by a co-ordinate bench, the present appeal filed by the assessee has become infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarifies the disallowance, is not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act by dismissing appeals without deciding on merits and also violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the contributions were deposited before the return filing date. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed deposit is not justified if the deposit is made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the disallowance, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the support services were not ancillary to royalty income and did not 'make available' technical knowledge. Similarly, training expenses were found to be for orientation and did not involve transfer of technology, thus not qualifying as FIS.