ITAT Jaipur Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that employee's contribution to PF/ESI, if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B of the Act.

The Tribunal decided to allow the ground for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT passed the order under Section 263 without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, payments made before the return filing due date are allowable.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, payments made before the return filing due date are allowable.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, payments made before the return filing due date are allowable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of the cash deposits, including withdrawals for agricultural land purchase and agricultural income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding Exchange Rate Variation, stating it was revenue neutral and taxed in the previous year. It also allowed the assessee's ground related to interest on borrowed funds for subsidiaries.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding Exchange Rate Variation, stating it was revenue neutral and taxed in the previous year. It also allowed the assessee's ground related to interest on borrowed funds for subsidiaries.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding Exchange Rate Variation, stating it was revenue neutral and taxed in the previous year. It also allowed the assessee's ground related to interest on borrowed funds for subsidiaries.

The Tribunal held that addition on account of notional interest is not permissible if no real income has accrued or been received. It further held that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income has been earned during the year.

The Tribunal held that addition on account of notional interest is not permissible if no real income has accrued or been received. It further held that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income has been earned during the year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) as it fulfilled the conditions. The entry in the receipt and payment account was found to be an inadvertent accounting error and not a sale of assets, thus the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 168 days, citing the assessee's status as a government body and the interest of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that if employee's contribution to ESI/PF 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 the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal allowed the ground related to closing stock valuation, stating that the assessee's method of valuation at cost or market price, whichever is lower, was regularly followed and supported by evidence of market rates. The Tribunal allowed the ground related to LIC premium for statistical purposes, remanding it to the Assessing Officer for verification of proper proof of payment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was already registered under Section 12AA and the new provisions requiring a fresh application were not applicable at the time. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's request to withdraw the mistakenly filed application.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was already registered under Section 12AA and the new provisions requiring a fresh application were not applicable at the time. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's request to withdraw the mistakenly filed application.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B are prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, they do not apply to the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year in question. The disallowance made by the AO was not admissible.

The Tribunal held that since the sales were supported by delivery challans and invoices and were accepted by the AO, the cash receipt arising from these sales could not be considered income under Section 68. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contribution is not permissible if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, as the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contribution is not permissible if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, as the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and Supreme Court directives. However, it upheld the Pr. CIT's order, finding the Assessing Officer's order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the tankers were used in a separate business of transportation and allowed the higher depreciation claim. For car expenses, it allowed a partial disallowance of 1/10th of fuel and repair expenses, while disallowing depreciation and insurance.

The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest was not justified as there was no evidence of interest being received or paid. Regarding the agricultural income, the Tribunal referred to its earlier findings in a related appeal.

The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest was not justified as there was no evidence of interest being received or paid. Regarding the agricultural income, the Tribunal referred to its earlier findings in a related appeal.

The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest was not justified as there was no evidence of interest being received or paid. Regarding the agricultural income, the Tribunal referred to its earlier findings in a related appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the tankers were used in a separate business of transportation and allowed the higher depreciation claim. For car expenses, it allowed a partial disallowance of 1/10th of fuel and repair expenses, while disallowing depreciation and insurance.

The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest was not justified as there was no evidence of interest being received or paid. Regarding the agricultural income, the Tribunal referred to its earlier findings in a related appeal.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received were advances for the proposed sale of agricultural land, not loans. Therefore, the assessee had not violated Section 269SS and was not liable for penalty under Section 271D.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the IT Act, 1961, inserting explanations, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that if the employee's PF contribution is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction cannot be disallowed. The amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B were considered in light of existing High Court judgments.

The Tribunal partly allowed both the assessee's and the department's appeals. The department's ground regarding the CIT(A) not issuing notice was dismissed, and the assessee's ground for setting off trading additions was also dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and Supreme Court directives. However, it upheld the Pr. CIT's order, finding the Assessing Officer's order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal as the supplementary partnership deed clearly stated that the maximum remuneration payable to working partners was Rs. 30 lacs, which was within the limit. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed both the assessee's and the department's appeals. The department's ground regarding the CIT(A) not issuing notice was dismissed, and the assessee's ground for setting off trading additions was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied merely because the new residential house was purchased in the name of the assessee's wife, provided the investment was made from the sale proceeds of the existing asset. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions supporting this view.