ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause. On merits, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's orders and restored the issues to the PCIT's file for fresh examination, granting the assessees another opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the disallowances. The CIT(A) had reasoned that the Assessing Officer failed to establish excessiveness or unreasonableness of interest rates and that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover interest-free advances.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to present their case before the PCIT due to the short notice period. Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the PCIT's file for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause. On merits, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's orders and restored the issues to the PCIT's file for fresh examination, granting the assessees another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation from years prior to the initial year for claiming deduction under Section 80IA need not be adjusted. The PCIT's view was contrary to a CBDT circular, making the revision order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT cannot direct the AO to re-examine issues without demonstrating the error in the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries and applied his mind, taking a possible view on the issues raised by the PCIT. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT cannot direct the AO to re-examine issues without demonstrating the error in the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. However, liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall if the issue falls under exceptions.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment for a protective addition, without a definite belief of income escaping assessment, amounts to reopening on suspicion and is therefore bad in law. The reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed as the declaration to settle the dispute was accepted by the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal, having considered the submissions of the assessee and the Revenue, allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal based on their submission of settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee deposited the employees' contribution towards PF & ESI before the due date of filing the return. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited the employee contributions before the due date of filing the return. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that Section 43B does not apply to employee contributions to PF/ESI, and the due date under Section 36(1)(va) is relevant.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not submit the required documents and had been given sufficient opportunities. However, to provide one last chance, the appeal was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision on merit.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal heard the learned DR and, considering the assessee's submissions, allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the provision for bad and doubtful debts was correctly calculated as per Rule 6ABA. It also concurred that the vehicle hire charges were correctly treated under Section 194C, not Section 194I, for TDS purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration to settle the dispute was accepted by the Competent Authority. Therefore, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal restored the interest disallowance issue to the AO for examination of books of accounts to verify the loan. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal held that assets kept ready for use, even if not actively generating income, are eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to furnish the required details due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside to provide an opportunity for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to furnish the required details due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case afresh.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. held that Section 43B does not apply to employee's PF/ESI contributions and the due date under Section 36(1)(va) is relevant. The issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. which clarified that Section 43B does not apply to employee's PF/ESI contributions. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals based on wrong facts and without adjudicating them on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal restored the interest disallowance issue to the AO for examination of books of accounts to verify the loan. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal held that assets kept ready for use, even if not actively generating income, are eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals based on wrong facts and without adjudicating them on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited the employee's contribution before the due date of filing the return. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that Section 43B does not apply to employee's contribution to PF/ESI, and the due date under Section 36(1)(va) is applicable.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. held that Section 43B does not apply to employee contributions to PF/ESI, and the due date under Section 36(1)(va) applies. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that revision proceedings under Section 263 require the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Since the AO's remand report confirmed the reporting of the transactions, the 'erroneous' condition was not met, invalidating the revision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. held that Section 43B does not apply to employee's PF/ESI contributions and the due date under Section 36(1)(va) is applicable. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited the employee's contribution before the due date of filing the return. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that Section 43B does not apply to employee's contribution to PF/ESI, and the due date under Section 36(1)(va) is applicable.