Loading ITAT cases…
139 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the Finance Act 2021 amendment regarding employee PF/ESI contributions is prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, payments made before the return filing date were allowable for the assessment year in question. The puja donations were also held to be allowable business expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the violation of natural justice due to the ex parte order. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective and not retrospective, thus not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal also found that ad-hoc disallowances of expenses without proper justification are not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal if permitted by law, to agitate the issues as per law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's persistent non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause for it. The ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside due to a violation of natural justice, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and did not dispose of the appeal on merits. Such dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since the recipient of the interest income had already offered it to tax, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted. Consequently, the AO's action of not disallowing the interest was not faulty.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to serve notice properly and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue on merits and exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the AO to re-examine the issue. The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 11,60,122/- claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments were made by the drivers acting as agents of the assessee while vehicles were in transit. These payments fell under the exception provided in Rule 6DD(k) of the IT Rules, making the disallowance unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the forfeited advance constituted a genuine business loss incurred in the regular course of business. The CIT(A)'s denial of the claim was considered an error.
The Tribunal held that the Additional CIT is not an Assessing Officer as defined under Section 2(7A) unless specifically empowered. Since the revenue failed to produce any order under Section 120(4)(b) and Section 127 of the Act post-restructuring, the assessment order was deemed to be framed without valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue on merits and exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the AO to re-examine the issue. The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 11,60,122/- claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted if employee and employer contributions to PF & ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, inserting Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not warranted as the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective in nature.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted if employee and employer contributions to PF & ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, inserting Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand from previous withdrawals to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not warranted as the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective in nature.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF/ESIC are deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, no disallowance is warranted under Section 36(1)(va). Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021, inserting an Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, it is not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) should not have rejected the application in limine, especially considering the lockdown period and the availability of details. The CIT's jurisdiction is limited to verifying the objects and genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee ought to have been given a proper opportunity to explain the facts, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Tin Box Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) due to a violation of natural justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) due to a violation of natural justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without verifying the facts and considering Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) due to a violation of natural justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO had made errors in calculating returned income and that the CIT(A) had correctly allowed the appeal regarding depreciation. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s partial allowance of the addition for unexplained revenue receipts.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature, applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the assessee's claim for deduction of belatedly paid employee contributions is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021, inserting an Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, it is not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the additional grounds raised by the assessee concerning the legality of the assessment reopening. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back for a fresh adjudication of these legal issues.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating it on merits. The CIT(A) has plenary powers and should have decided the appeal or called for a remand report.
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, for the assessment year 2018-19, the deduction for belatedly paid employees' contributions, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been given a proper opportunity to explain its case, as per Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was based on a 'change of opinion' by the AO, not on any fresh material. The AO does not have the power to review a completed assessment.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective in nature and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year 2017-18, the deduction for employee contributions 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, for the assessment year 2018-19, the deduction for belatedly paid employee contributions should be allowed if paid before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2018-19, the assessee's claim for deduction is allowable if the remittance was made before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B were not applicable to the assessment year in question. The issue was covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recalling the order if the scheme application was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses incurred by agents on behalf of the assessee is not subject to TDS, thus allowing the appeal on the freight charges. For the additions to income, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument of consistency and remanded the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed replied to the show cause notices. Therefore, the PCIT's order was vitiated for violation of natural justice and was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was granted registration under Section 12AA for a subsequent period after a fresh application. Therefore, the rejection of the earlier application due to non-compliance caused by the pandemic was set aside.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that he was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had misread the Income Tax Return and wrongly concluded that the assessee had not filed the return for AY 2007-08. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on a commission report without the AO applying their own mind is questionable. Since the reasons for reopening were not provided to the assessee, the matter was remanded.
The tribunal held that since the rectification order stemmed from the original assessment order, both appeals should have been clubbed and adjudicated together. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that if the AO disagreed with the assessee's valuation report, he should have obtained a report from the Department Valuation Officer (DVO). Since this was not done, the case was remanded back to the AO.