8 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that even in ex-parte orders, adjudication must be on merits. The CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that delayed payments of EPF/ESIC, if made before the filing of the return of income, cannot be disallowed. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for appropriate orders, considering the settled judicial position.
The Tribunal held that since the deposits were made before filing the return of income, the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) is not sustainable. The Tribunal followed its own coordinate benches and various High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that delayed payments of EPF/ESIC, if made before the filing of the return of income, cannot be disallowed. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for appropriate orders, considering the settled judicial position.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of these delayed payments is not sustainable if they are made before the filing of the return of income, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of these delayed payments is not sustainable if they are made before the filing of the return of income, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of these delayed payments is not sustainable if they are made before the filing of the return of income, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of these delayed payments is not sustainable if they are made before the filing of the return of income, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.