ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 the CIT(Exemption)'s observation that rental income is not charitable to be incorrect based on the facts. It directed the CIT(Exemption) to re-examine the matter and grant the registration and approval.

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 the CIT(Exemption)'s observation that rental income is not charitable to be incorrect based on the facts. It directed the CIT(Exemption) to re-examine the matter and grant the registration and approval.

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the source of investment of Rs. 30 lakhs was clear as it was obtained as a loan from the partnership firm's bank account and used for purchasing property in the co-owner's name. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of the amendment to Section 43(5) as it was not in existence during the period the losses were incurred. Therefore, the speculative losses could not be set off against business income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the difference in turnover was due to one partner using the firm's service tax number for his individual practice, as per the partnership deed. The Tribunal found the reconciliation to be valid and that there was no loss of revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. However, this was subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 Rs. 4 lakhs of the alleged investment were actually sale proceeds from previously purchased shares. Another Rs. 2 lakhs investment in shares of M/s. SSKS Estates Pvt. Ltd. pertained to the succeeding assessment year. The remaining Rs. 1 lakh investment was considered explained by past savings.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions for the same assessee in identical facts for AY 2006-07 and AY 2008-09, wherein reassessment proceedings were quashed and additions deleted. The Tribunal found no change in facts and circumstances.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable. It relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments stating that if employee contributions are deposited before the due date of filing the return, they cannot be disallowed. The Tribunal also clarified that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and applicable from April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT had not made out a case of prejudice to the Revenue and that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries. Merely having a different view than the AO is not sufficient grounds to invoke Section 263.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. The Tribunal also noted that mere making of a claim not sustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The tribunal noted that as per Section 4(2) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an appeal pending before the tribunal is deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate by the designated authority. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.