Loading ITAT cases…
57 tribunal orders from the Jabalpur bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 57 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that adjustments under section 143(1) are limited to non-contentious matters. Since the issue of employee contributions had conflicting judicial opinions and the relevant explanatory amendments were prospective, the additions made under section 143(1) were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 154 were not justified as the Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, intended to clarify the issue, were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the employee's contribution deposited after the due date under Section 36(1)(va) was not deductible.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 143(1) were not justified as the Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the employee's contribution deposited before the due date of filing the return of income should not be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 143(1) were not justified as the Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the employee's contribution deposited before the due date of filing the return of income should not be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 143(1) were not justified as the Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the employee's contribution deposited before the due date of filing the return of income should not be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1)/154 was not permissible as it involved debatable issues. It further clarified that Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B operate in different fields and that the Explanations inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1)/154 was not permissible as it involved debatable issues. It further held that the Explanations inserted in 2021, though clarificatory, were prospective and did not apply to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the nature of the transaction was not explained, nor was it substantiated with adequate details or contemporaneous material. The Tribunal also noted contradictions in the assessee's explanations and the lack of supporting evidence for freight charges.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the loans was not satisfactorily proved as the source of cash deposited by the creditors in their bank accounts remained unexplained. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were not valid. The reasons were based on an audit objection and did not constitute a 'reason to believe' escapement of income as required by law.
The Tribunal upheld the AO's estimation of profit at 2% of sales as reasonable, considering the absence of comparable cases supporting the assessee's claim. However, regarding the unexplained capital, the Tribunal set aside the addition and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a final opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the first limb of the reason for reopening, regarding non-liability to audit under Section 44AB, was invalid as it did not have income implications. The second limb, concerning the audit requirement for Section 80IB deduction, was also found invalid because the assessee had obtained the audit report in time and furnished it during reassessment proceedings, and the AO was aware of the extant procedure regarding annexure-less returns.
The Tribunal held that if the deductee has paid the tax on the income, the deductor is not liable for the shortfall in TDS, but remains liable for interest under Section 201(1A). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the deductee's tax payments.
The Tribunal held that if the deductee has paid the tax on the income, the deductor is not liable for the shortfall in TDS, but remains liable for interest under Section 201(1A). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the deductee's tax payments.
The Tribunal held that if the deductee has paid the tax on the income, the deductor is not liable for the shortfall in TDS, but remains liable for interest under Section 201(1A). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the deductee's tax payments.
The Tribunal found that the appellate record from the CIT(A) was not produced to substantiate the claim of withdrawal. Based on circumstantial evidence, including the assessee's letter and statement of facts, the Tribunal allowed the grounds alleging illegal dismissal.
The Tribunal found that the appellate record from the CIT(A) was not produced to substantiate the claim of withdrawal. Based on circumstantial evidence, including the assessee's letter and statement of facts, the Tribunal allowed the grounds alleging illegal dismissal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the exception for accepted audit objections was not met. The Assessing Officer had explicitly disagreed with the audit objection, stating the assessee's explanation was accepted and it was a case of change of opinion.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to the right to restore it if the VsVS application fails. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to the VsVS settlement process.
The Tribunal, with the consent of the Revenue, permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that by opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the assessee had relinquished its rights under the appellate procedure, making the appeals unmaintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that by opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the assessee had relinquished its rights under the appellate procedure, making the appeals unmaintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not maintainable as it failed to provide a speaking order and consider the assessee's case on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing due opportunity.
The Tribunal held that by opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the assessee had relinquished its rights under the appellate procedure, making the appeals unmaintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that by opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the assessee had relinquished its rights under the appellate procedure, making the appeals unmaintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that by opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the assessee had relinquished its rights under the appellate procedure, making the appeals unmaintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that by opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the assessee had relinquished its rights under the appellate procedure, making the appeals unmaintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that by opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the assessee had relinquished its rights under the appellate procedure, making the appeals unmaintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that by opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the assessee had relinquished its rights under the appellate procedure, making the appeals unmaintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that by opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the assessee had relinquished its rights under the appellate procedure, making the appeals unmaintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A). This was done to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present his case on merits, considering the grave personal circumstances.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2019. This settlement meant the appeals were no longer maintainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for and settled their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2019. The issuance of Form 3 under the scheme rendered the appeals unmaintainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2019. The issuance of Form 3 under the scheme rendered the appeals unmaintainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2019, and receiving the requisite settlement certificates.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was because the assessees had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2019' and received the requisite settlement certificates, rendering the appeals unmaintainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2019. This settlement meant the appeals were no longer maintainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2019. This settlement meant the appeals were no longer maintainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2019. This settlement meant the appeals were no longer maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the Vivad Se Vishwas Act allows for the withdrawal of appeals upon resolution of the dispute under the scheme. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.