Loading ITAT cases…
99 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding no infirmity. The PCIT had observed that the Assessing Officer failed to make proper inquiries regarding unsecured loans, investments, and current liabilities, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision and held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, payments made before the due date of filing the return are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of employee contributions to PF/ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date, was prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the assessee's claim was allowable.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Lumino Industries Limited, holding that the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, was prospective. Therefore, payments made before the due date of filing the return were allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, was prospective in nature. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) were allowable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction was invalid concerning the loss on penny stocks, as the AO had examined the details and taken a plausible view based on the evidence provided. The Tribunal found no lack of inquiry or erroneous assumption of facts by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the assessee's claim for deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, was prospective in nature. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) were allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature. Therefore, it applies from AY 2021-22 onwards and not to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years under consideration (2018-19 and 2019-20), the deduction for employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, it does not apply to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, it is not applicable to the assessment year under consideration (AY 2018-19).
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is prospective in nature. Therefore, it applies from AY 2021-22 onwards and is not applicable to the assessment year under consideration (AY 2018-19).
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year under consideration (AY 2019-20), the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Lumino Industries Limited, holding that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, was prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return were allowable.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Lumino Industries Limited, holding that the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, was prospective. Therefore, payments made before the due date of filing the return were allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years under consideration (2018-19 and 2019-20), the deduction for employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable.
The Tribunal held that a defective show cause notice, which does not specify the charge for penalty, renders the subsequent penalty proceedings invalid. Following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court and other benches, the Tribunal decided that the penalty could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, it does not apply to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, it does not apply to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, was prospective in nature. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) were allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature. Therefore, it applies from AY 2021-22 onwards and not to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature. Therefore, it applies from AY 2021-22 onwards and not to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the assessee's claim for deduction is allowable.
The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and unsustainable as it did not discuss the evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Lumino Industries Limited, holding that the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of employee contributions to PF/ESI paid before the return filing due date, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return are allowable.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Exemptions) as no one appeared on behalf of the appellant-trust to point out any infirmity. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found the addition of 10.10% to be excessive as the assessee had already shown a GP of 10.10%. It held that the addition should be restricted to reflect the potential difference in purchase price, not the entire GP.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power to examine additional evidence and that the Revenue's counsel could not point out any defect in the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of employee contributions to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the assessee's claim is allowable.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. This decision was based on various High Court judgments supporting this proposition.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reasonable attempt to avail a statutory remedy (Section 154 application). Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal, following its prior decision in a similar case, held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of employee contributions to PF/ESI paid before the return filing due date, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, such payments are allowable deductions.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the appeal on merits or legal grounds. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be allowed as claimed by the assessee, i.e., on the gross receipts, following previous judicial precedents. The AO was directed to recompute the accumulation accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B was prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) were allowable as deductions.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision in a similar case, holding that the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of employee contributions to PF/ESI paid before the return filing due date, was prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, such payments were allowable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A for expenditure relatable to exempt income needs to be recomputed based on the value of investments that actually earned exempt income. The disallowance of employees' PF contribution was allowed as it was paid within the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, clarifying that Section 43B does not apply to Section 36(1)(va) for determining the due date, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal found that the dismissal was ex parte and that the trust had provided reasons for their non-appearance. To uphold natural justice, the trust should be given an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2021-22, the jurisdictional High Court's view allowing deduction for such payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is binding. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, which clarified Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal corrected a minor typographical error in the appellant's PAN mentioned in the original order. The correct PAN has been specified for future reference.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Lumino Industries Limited, holding that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in a similar case, holding that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of delayed employee contributions to PF/ESI, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return are allowable.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Lumino Industries Limited, holding that the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.