Loading ITAT cases…
39 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not be dismissed on technicalities like delay without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) is applicable prospectively from A.Y. 2021-22. Therefore, the disallowance made for the A.Y. 2019-20 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation receipt, duly notarized and accepted by the other party in his statement, along with the absence of other corroborative material, rebutted the presumption of the advance. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and ITAT decisions stating that loose papers, diaries, or notebooks cannot be considered as 'books of accounts' for making additions without corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263. The AO had made inquiries and applied his mind, and the view taken by the AO was a possible view, even if the PCIT disagreed with it.
The tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in not considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee, violating Rule 46A. The tribunal admitted the additional evidence and quashed the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF/ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), it cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under appeal. Therefore, disallowances made for late deposit of employee's contribution, when paid before the return filing due date, are not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, it is not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19.
The assessee's counsel sent an email requesting to withdraw the appeal as the assessee did not wish to pursue it. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was illegal as the AO failed to demonstrate that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Furthermore, notional rental income from stock-in-trade is not taxable for a builder, especially as Section 23(5) was introduced prospectively.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute, the appeal was dismissed as no cause of action remained.
The Tribunal held that the addition of labour expenses was arbitrary and lacked concrete material. The retraction of the surrender statement and the regular maintenance of books of accounts were considered. The Tribunal found no basis for disallowing labour charges or sustaining even a 1% addition.
The Tribunal held that the addition of labour expenses was arbitrary and without concrete material. It found no logic or concrete reasons for the disallowance, whether by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year under consideration is not justified.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was illegal as the AO failed to demonstrate that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Furthermore, notional rental income from stock-in-trade is not taxable for a builder, especially as Section 23(5) was introduced prospectively.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had already deposited more TCS than calculated by the AO, as confirmed by the CIT(A) in one instance. In other instances, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes to verify records and allow credit for taxes paid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunity to be heard, especially considering the circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that while ignorance of law is not an excuse, there is no presumption that everyone knows the law. Considering the assessee's submission of being a small contractor unaware of procedures and the subsequent filing of details, the Tribunal found no willful failure.
The Tribunal held that while ignorance of law is not an excuse, there is no presumption that everyone knows the law. Considering the assessee's submission of being a small contractor unaware of procedures and the subsequent filing of details, the Tribunal found no willful failure.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is applicable prospectively from A.Y. 2021-22. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2019-20, where deposits were made before the return filing due date, was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the 80G application was based on a misconception. Considering the assessee's existing 12AA registration and prior 80G approvals, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable. The employee's contribution to PF and ESI, though paid after the due date under the respective acts, was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal also noted a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the registration was bad in law and on facts. It reasoned that the amendment to the objects in 2013 did not require prior permission and the subsequent application under Section 12A(1)(ab) was withdrawn. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's activities were within the scope of charitable purposes and the GPU percentage was less than 20%.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is applicable prospectively from AY 2021-22. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2018-19 on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF & ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT's order and the interest of justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT for a fresh decision after providing the assessees with an opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT's order and the interest of justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT for a fresh decision after providing the assessees with an opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
Since the assessee opted for the VSVS scheme and submitted the required form, the appeal was dismissed as no cause of action remained. The assessee can move for recalling the order if the compromise is not affected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT's order and the interest of justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT for a fresh decision after providing the assessees with an opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on differences in Form 26AS and books of accounts are not sustainable if the books are audited and reconciled. Similarly, a lumpsum disallowance without specific defects in vouchers or expenses being identified was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of sale of shares and the resultant capital gain clearly pertained to AY 2008-09, as evidenced by the sale bills and bank statements. Therefore, this capital gain could not be taxed in AY 2014-15, even if there were technical discrepancies in the e-filed return.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons provided by the assessee. It further held that the addition of Rs. 2,62,930/- was uncalled for and directed the deletion of this addition. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow credit for TDS and self-assessment tax as reflected in Form 26AS.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, specifically Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B, are prospective in nature. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2018-19 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, specifically Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B, are prospective in nature. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2018-19 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, specifically Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B, are prospective in nature. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2018-19 was not sustainable.