Loading ITAT cases…
595 orders · Page 7 of 12
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on the farmhouse by following a coordinate bench's decision. For the effluent treatment plant, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination based on an affidavit from the lessee. Similarly, the disallowance of interest was also restored to the AO for verification of loan usage and investment sources.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by previous orders of the ITAT and the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. This decision was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lacs.
The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's explanation and the AO's remand report without proper consideration. While the assessee provided explanations and documentary evidence for a significant portion of the deposits, she failed to substantiate a balance amount of Rs. 1,96,779/-.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), which had followed earlier decisions in the assessee's own case by the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. These decisions treated the assessee as a charitable organization and entitled to the benefit of mutuality based on the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were substantially reduced by a coordinate bench to an estimated basis (2% of total sales turnover), the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not justified. Sustaining penalty on estimated additions is unjustified.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of administrative and selling expenses. The assessee failed to substantiate its claim or controvert the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that an addition made on an estimation basis, without evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not warrant a penalty. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty on the addition related to suppressed gross profits, as the underlying addition was no longer valid. The Revenue failed to provide any material to counter the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deductions under sections 54F and 54B was incorrect and not in consonance with the documents. The revised computation and payment of tax were made after the AO confronted the assessee with the correct position, indicating it was not a voluntary disclosure.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings were restored to the CIT(A), the penalty appeal should also be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide any rebuttal or evidence to contest the findings. The ground raised for the first time before the Tribunal was also rejected.
The Tribunal found that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without affording the assessee an opportunity to present her case. To uphold natural justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without deciding the issues on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merit, as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal reversed the addition on unsecured loans, finding that the assessee discharged the onus by providing lender confirmations, IT returns, and evidence of repayment. However, the addition on capital introduction was upheld due to the assessee's failure to explain the source of cash deposits in the partnership firm.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order and violated principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of hearing. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and that the Designated Authority had issued Form-5. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) for interest expenditure should be calculated on the net interest expenditure, after reducing the taxable interest income earned by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the disallowance on this basis.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on figures not considered by the AO. Therefore, the AO was given another opportunity to verify these figures and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of late deposit of employee PF/ESI contributions was not justified, as the amounts were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendments brought by the Finance Act 2021 were held not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the grievance raised in the appeal had been settled by a consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer. This order accepted the assessee's position, rendering the appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the conversion of land into stock in trade occurred in an earlier assessment year. The development agreement with Unitech did not constitute a transfer of capital asset or stock in trade during the year under appeal, and no consideration was received.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition in the hands of Sh. Anurag Dalmia was deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was also not sustainable. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and noted the inordinate delay in serving the order, which cast aspersions on fair play. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was indeed passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Act. Consequently, the order was deemed void ab initio and liable to be quashed as time-barred.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was dismissed due to the VSVS settlement, and under the scheme, there is a complete waiver of penalty. Therefore, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the statement that the dispute had been settled under the VSV Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI was not justified if 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 found that the CIT(A) had not provided a clear finding on the availability of the Section 54F deduction. Citing a High Court precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that once a presumption is drawn regarding the truthfulness of seized documents, unaccounted expenses leading to net losses cannot be ignored. Additions on account of undisclosed stock were deleted as they were based on surmises.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard and verified notice service. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the payment of EDC to DGTCP, Haryana, through HUDA was a payment to the State Government. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS, making the penalty under Section 271C unsustainable.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic, non-descript, and lacking in reasoning. The significant delay in serving the order also raised concerns. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
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 from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
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 from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
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 from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
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 from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
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 from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
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 from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
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 from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.