Loading ITAT cases…
50 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application filed by the assessee's counsel. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
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 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 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 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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were not considered applicable retrospectively.
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 under section 139(1), 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 applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
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 where PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statutes but before filing the return of income under section 139(1), 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 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 Tribunal held that the additions made on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court.
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.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of submitting documents, but found no proof on record. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the assessee to submit the required documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not fully complied with the CIT's notice, although they claimed to have submitted documents later. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish the required documents and cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and taken a judicious view. The selection of the case was not based on transfer pricing risk parameters, making the reference to TPO unnecessary.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 could not be sustained. It found that the PCIT had failed to conduct an independent inquiry to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and had merely ignored the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and taken a judicious view. The selection of the case was not based on transfer pricing risk parameters, making the reference to TPO unnecessary.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to conduct independent inquiries to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had ignored the assessee's replies and made bald assertions without proper justification, leading to the quashing of the PCIT's order.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had not conducted its own inquiry and had merely set aside the assessment for the AO to re-examine issues. This was contrary to established judicial guidelines, which require the PCIT to form an opinion on the erroneous nature of the order after conducting necessary inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted due inquiry and examination, considering documentary evidence and judicial precedents, and had arrived at a reasonable conclusion. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made proper inquiries and verifications regarding the surrendered income and the property transaction. The AO had examined the documentation, the assessee's statement, and the surrender made, and therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the AO had duly examined the stock discrepancies and the additional income offered by the assessee. The figures cited by the Principal CIT (Pr. CIT) regarding excess stock were found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and examinations, including verifying the assessee's cash book and balance sheets. The AO's order was not considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the source of cash withdrawals from earlier years through property sale documentation and tax filings. The mere absence of documentary evidence for the non-materialized property purchase did not invalidate the explanation, especially when the linkage to available cash was established.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and examinations, and taken a judicious view based on the material on record. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order allowing amortization as per CBDT Circular 9/2014 was not erroneous. The issue of Section 80IA deduction was also considered beyond the scope of limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the AO had conducted due verification and the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the order was faulty.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The property in question was stock-in-trade for the assessee, a real estate dealer, and thus not a capital asset for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his burden by providing evidence that the cash belonged to M/s Lux Industries Ltd. The AO failed to cross-examine the director of the company and did not collect other material to rebut the evidence. The Tribunal directed to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions for non-charging of interest on trade debtors as there was no provision in the Act to include notional interest not collected or received. The advances were considered to be for business expediency.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had duly examined the issue during assessment, verified the utilization of funds in the proprietorship business, and accepted the genuineness of loans and interest payments. The PCIT failed to specify how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT did not examine the assessment proceedings objectively and in its entirety. The allocation based on stamp duty rates was a valid basis, and the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 263 were not justified.