ITAT Jaipur Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal held that if employee's contribution to PF & ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made necessary inquiries and that a cooperative bank is a species of cooperative society. Therefore, the interest earned from it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT's order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made necessary inquiries and relied on previous orders of the CIT(A) and other ITAT benches. Given the divergent views among High Courts on the issue and the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision, the AO's plausible view could not be considered erroneous.

The Tribunal held that if employee's contribution to PF & ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal agreed that the matter should be set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was due to the CIT(A) not adjudicating on the legality of Section 41(1) invocation and admitting additional evidence without affording the AO an opportunity to examine it.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries and the assessee had provided necessary details. The Tribunal found that the AO's view was one of the possible views and the Pr. CIT failed to follow the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries and the assessee had provided necessary details. The Tribunal found that the AO's view was one of the possible views and the Pr. CIT failed to follow the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee's objects, as a Section 8 company, were not commercial and directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the registration application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the reasonable cause due to the pandemic. On merits, the Tribunal found that the objects of the assessee, though having elements of business promotion, fall under 'any other object of general public utility' as a Section 8 company, and directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause due to the pandemic. On merits, the Tribunal admitted the appeal for adjudication on the grounds that the assessee's objects, being a Section 8 company focused on skill development, are charitable in nature.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the matter.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries and the assessee had provided necessary details. The Tribunal found that the AO's view was one of the possible views and the Pr. CIT failed to follow the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO had not properly accounted for the gross profit margin when valuing the stock. The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned and no new facts were presented to warrant interference.

The Tribunal held that even with the merchant banker's report, the fair market value of shares was higher than the issue price, making Section 56(2)(viib) inapplicable. Therefore, the AO's order was not prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits through withdrawals from earlier years and cash in hand, supported by cash books and cash flow statements. The sale of property was also considered as a factor.