Loading ITAT cases…
200 tribunal orders from the Jodhpur bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 200 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) and 43B is not permissible if employee contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that payments of ESI and PF contributions made after the due date under respective acts but before filing the return of income under Section 139(1) cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that payments of ESI and PF contributions made after the due date under respective acts but before filing the return of income under Section 139(1) cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that where PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statutes but before filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that disallowances for delayed deposit of employees' contributions to ESI & PF are not permissible if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions.
The Tribunal held that disallowances for delayed deposit of employees' contributions to ESI & PF are not permissible if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following its own prior decisions and those of the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court, the Tribunal held that disallowances for delayed payment of employee PF/ESI contributions, if paid before the return filing date, are not permissible under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that where PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under respective statutes but before filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions on identical issues.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF/ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid after the due date but before the filing of the return of income is not permissible, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. The issue of brought forward business losses was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that additions made under Section 68 based solely on bank statements are invalid, as bank statements are not considered 'books of accounts' for this purpose. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order did not specify the section under which additions were made.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that additions made under Section 68 based solely on bank statements are invalid, as bank statements are not considered 'books of accounts' for this purpose. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order did not specify the section under which additions were made.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that additions made under Section 68 based solely on bank statements are invalid, as bank statements are not considered 'books of accounts' for this purpose. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order did not specify the section under which additions were made.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that additions made under Section 68 based solely on bank statements are invalid, as bank statements are not considered 'books of accounts' for this purpose. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order did not specify the section under which additions were made.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that additions made under Section 68 based solely on bank statements are invalid, as bank statements are not considered 'books of accounts' for this purpose. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order did not specify the section under which additions were made.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made all necessary inquiries and verifications expected of a prudent officer. The PCIT failed to specify what further inquiries were needed, thus the AO's order was not erroneous. Consequently, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made all necessary inquiries and verifications as expected of a prudent officer. The PCIT failed to specify what further inquiries were needed, thus the AO's order could not be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made all necessary inquiries and verifications as expected of a prudent officer. The PCIT did not specify what further inquiries were needed, thus the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that if PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under respective statutes but before filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The jurisdictional High Court's decisions were to be followed.
The Tribunal held that such delayed deposits, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The decisions of the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court were followed.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application filed by the assessee's counsel. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received a certificate. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that if PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under respective statutes but before filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The jurisdictional High Court's decisions were to be followed.
The Tribunal held that if PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under respective statutes but before filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The jurisdictional High Court's decisions were to be followed.
The Tribunal held that if PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under respective statutes but before filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The jurisdictional High Court's decisions were to be followed.
The Tribunal held that if PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under respective statutes but before filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The jurisdictional High Court's decisions were to be followed.
The Tribunal held that if PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under respective statutes but before filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The jurisdictional High Court's decisions were to be followed.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application filed by the assessee's counsel. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that such delayed deposits, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were not considered applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that if PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statutes but before filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were not considered applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the short period and the circumstances involving the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed by the Department where the tax effect is Rs. 50 Lacs or less are not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that such delayed deposits, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were not considered applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that if PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statutes but before filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were not considered applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not consider the assessee's adjournment request or its online submissions, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that such delayed deposits, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were not considered applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that such delayed deposits, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were not considered applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee is to be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee's appeal was pending as on January 31, 2020, and they had fulfilled the conditions of the scheme by filing the declaration and receiving the certificate under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act on January 31, 2021. According to Section 4(2) of the DTVSV Act, 2020, where a declaration has been filed by the assessee, the appeal shall be deemed to be withdrawn from the date on which the certificate under Section 5(1) is issued. Therefore, the appeal stood withdrawn on January 31, 2021. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to this course of action. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that such delayed deposits, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions.
The Tribunal held that such delayed deposits, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions.