Loading ITAT cases…
47 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI is not sustainable if the deposit is made before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI is not sustainable if the deposit is made before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI is not sustainable if the deposit is made before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI is not sustainable if the deposit is made before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI is not sustainable if the deposit is made before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act for late deposit of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI is not sustainable if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B was not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B was not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B was not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B was not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B was not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B was not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B was not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B was not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds and should have decided on merits. The tribunal found that the family pension was already offered for tax, and the arrears of salary were earned by the deceased husband and not taxable in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance and concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed ex parte.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with Section 142(1) notice could not be invoked if the notice was not served due to a reasonable cause, such as a change of address. The assessee's explanation for non-compliance was considered bonafide and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the disallowance of belatedly deposited employee contributions to PF and ESIC, are applicable prospectively from AY 2021-22. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2019-20 was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not sustainable. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective, and therefore, not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, is not permissible under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it cannot be disallowed. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO. The AO's reliance on a retracted statement without corroborating evidence was found to be insufficient to disallow the claim.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO. The AO's reliance on a retracted statement without corroborating evidence was found to be insufficient to disallow the claim.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it cannot be disallowed. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it cannot be disallowed. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it cannot be disallowed. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO. The AO's reliance on a retracted statement without corroborating evidence was found to be insufficient to prove the bogus nature of the LTCG.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO. The AO's reliance on a retracted statement recorded under pressure, without corroborating evidence, was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO. The AO's reliance on a retracted statement without corroborating evidence was found to be insufficient to disallow the claim.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not justified. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, by inserting Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, by inserting Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, by inserting Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, by inserting Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, by inserting Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is attracted only if exempt income is earned, and disallowance of vehicle/travel expenses was not justified as they were for business purposes. The addition under Section 68 was deleted as the assessee discharged its initial burden.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, by inserting Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed mechanically for every non-compliance. It was also noted that it was unclear if the notices were properly served, and the penalty was levied by an officer without clear jurisdiction over the specific notices.
The tribunal noted that the appeal was filed by post. The specific decision on the merits of the appeal is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the difference in sales was indeed consignment sales and not the assessee's income, directing deletion of the addition. Regarding interest on unsecured loans, the Tribunal found it to be for business purposes and allowable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by adopting a liberal approach towards the 'sufficient cause' for delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee was out of India as evidenced by their passport. The Tribunal found the NFAC's dismissal against the principles of natural justice for not providing a proper opportunity to present evidence regarding the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had not conducted necessary verifications regarding the genuineness of the payment. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh investigation and verification of the payment's genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's use of the Cost Plus Method (CPM) with Gross Profit Margin/Cost of Production (GP/COP) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) was appropriate, as the assessee is a manufacturer and exporter undertaking significant risks. The TPO's adoption of the Berry ratio with Operating Profit/Value Added Expenses (OP/VAE) was deemed inappropriate.