Loading ITAT cases…
474 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, considering the assessee's submission of working abroad and lack of proper opportunity to comply. The burden is on the assessee to furnish required details for reconciliation.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. It held that belated payment of employee's contribution to EPF & ESI should not be treated as deemed income of the employer.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute had been resolved under the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. The designated authority had issued Form-5, indicating the settlement of the dispute.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on incorrect facts and without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the order passed were deemed bad in law and unsustainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, evidenced by the issuance of Form-5.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are clarificatory and do not apply retrospectively to disallow such payments made before the return filing due date.
The Tribunal held that the legislative intent is to allow expenditure only when payment is actually made and not to treat belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI as deemed income. The disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. This was done in the interest of fair play and justice due to the assessee's lack of proper compliance and claims of being kept in the dark.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the books of account due to unrecorded consignment sales. However, the estimated net profit rate was considered high.
The Tribunal held that the project expenses debited by the assessee are allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act as they were incurred for the assessee's business purposes and objects. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence regarding the source of deposits, which was not considered by the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after verifying the evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide sufficient time to the assessee and that the dismissal was premature. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for data transmission services are neither royalty nor fee for technical services under the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The Tribunal followed the consistent view of itself and the jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years.
The Tribunal held that expenditure on moulds is revenue in nature, following its own prior decision for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the rent equalization provision was not an ascertained liability as no material was produced to show it was required for any possible enhancement in rent. The reversal of the provision in the next year further supported this conclusion.
The Tribunal held that the matter requires re-adjudication by the CIT(A) as not all grounds were decided and additional evidence was not admitted. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on all grounds after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
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, following various High Court judgments. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021 were considered prospective.
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, especially for assessment years prior to 2021-22. This is in line with various High Court judgments and the Supreme Court decision in Vinay Cement.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of PF/ESIC contributions is not warranted if the amounts were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 was held not applicable to the assessment year in question.
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 principle was based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments prior to the Finance Act, 2021 amendments.
The Tribunal held that the delayed payment of employee's contribution to EPF/ESIC is not disallowable for the assessment year in question, as the relevant amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr.CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for upholding additions based on the non-filing of ITR was erroneous, as the assessee had filed a return. It also found that cash deposits were explained by sale proceeds and substantial cash withdrawals, directing deletion of sustained additions.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was no longer aggrieved by the revisional order and had waived any objection. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue's lack of objection.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2011-12, additions made under Section 68 should be allowed to be set off against business losses, following CBDT Circular No. 11/2019. The issue of validity of reopening under Section 147 was not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of PF/ESIC contributions, if made before the filing of the return of income, is an allowable expenditure. The amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal of the assessee was allowed by quashing the assessment proceedings due to a defective notice under section 143(2), the penalty imposed does not survive.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not have valid jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 153C for assessment year 2007-08, as it was barred by limitation based on the date of the satisfaction note. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposits of PF & ESIC contributions made before the filing of the return of income are allowable expenditures. The amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 was found not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' PF/ESI contributions, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, is an allowable expenditure. The amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 was held not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision, stating that belated payment of employees' contribution to EPF & ESI should not be treated as deemed income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision, stating that belated payment of employees' contribution to EPF & ESI should not be treated as deemed income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals could not be filed by the department.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals could not be filed by the department.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the AO to consider the evidence filed by the assessee regarding agricultural income. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Appeals). This was done to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case, considering extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from submitting necessary documents earlier.
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, stating that the AO had found the return to be valid as per ITD. In the absence of contrary material from the assessee, the objection regarding the defective return was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals could not be filed by the department.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals could not be filed by the department.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals could not be filed by the department.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not properly considered the assessee's written submissions regarding the source of investment and payments made in different financial years. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals could not be filed by the department.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals could not be filed by the department.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause or evidence to rebut the presumption of service of notices. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance was justified.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.