Loading ITAT cases…
139 orders · Page 2 of 3
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.
The Tribunal held that the second reopening by the AO was based on the same reasons as the first. Since the AO had already made an addition in the first round and accepted the balance, the second AO could not review the first AO's order. Therefore, the order of no addition in the second reopening was valid.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act 2021, inserting an Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective in nature and applies from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year under consideration (2019-20), the deduction should be allowed if paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017 and assurances given in Parliament, deposits up to Rs. 2.50 Lacs by housewives (and Rs. 5 Lacs for senior citizens above 70) during demonetization should not be scrutinized. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was incorrect.
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 applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year 2019-20, the deduction is allowable if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to verify if the Rs. 4 lacs was indeed offered for taxation in AY 2014-15 and if so, to delete the addition to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year under consideration (2018-19), the assessee's claim for deduction is allowable if remitted before the due date of filing the return.
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 noted that the assessee had already received Form No. 3 under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal.
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 years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
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 years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the disallowance was incorrect.
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, 1961, is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for AY 2018-19, the assessee's claim for deduction of employees' 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 under consideration (2019-20), the assessee's claim for deduction is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return.
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 Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the deduction should be allowed if the payment was made 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 in nature and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, 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, inserting an Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective in nature and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year in question (2017-18), the disallowance was incorrect if the payment was made before the due date of filing the return.
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 applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the deduction should be allowed if the payment was made before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the disallowance based on the amendment was incorrect.
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 in question, the assessee's claim for deduction should be allowed if the payment was made 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 in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year in question (2019-20), the earlier judicial precedents allowing deduction for payments made before the due date of filing the return of income would apply.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, inserting an Explanation to Section 36(1)(va), is prospective in nature and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the disallowance of belated employee contributions to PF/ESI, is prospective in nature. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought in 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 year under consideration (2018-19), the disallowance was incorrect.
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 years in question, the prior judicial precedents allowing deduction for payments made before the return filing due date would apply.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, clarifying the due date for employees' contribution, is prospective in nature and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year in question (2018-19), the earlier position that allowed deduction if paid before the return filing due date would apply.
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 years in question, the prior judicial precedents allowing deduction for payments made before the return filing due date would apply.
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 Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the deduction should be allowed if the payment was made 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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for AY 2018-19, the assessee's claim for deduction of employees' 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, inserting an Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective in nature and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the deduction should be allowed if the payment was made before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective in nature and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the deduction for employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the deduction of education cess, following a co-ordinate bench decision. However, the grounds concerning short grant of DDT credit and interest under section 115P were set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective in nature and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the deduction for employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the ITO was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction, making it void ab initio. Since the ACIT did not issue a fresh notice under Section 143(2) and no valid order under Section 127 was produced for the transfer, the assessment framed by the ACIT was bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The AO had incorrectly given appeal effect by reducing Rs. 13,03,77,23,000/- instead of the full Rs. 13,37,84,83,000/-, leaving a disallowance of Rs. 34,07,60,000/-.
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 (2019-20), the assessee's claim for deduction 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, effective from AY 2021-22. Therefore, for the assessment year in question (2019-20), the assessee's claim for deduction is allowable if payments were made before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention and corrected the assessment year in its order. The correct assessment year is now to be read as 2016-17.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021, inserting an Explanation to Section 36(1)(va), is prospective in nature and not retrospective. Therefore, it does not apply to the assessment year 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, it does not apply to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by the competent authority, there was no justification for denying the deduction under Section 11. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that Section 50C is not applicable in cases of compulsory acquisition of land by NHAI. It also agreed with the CIT(A) that the disallowance of coal shortage based solely on prior year's figures was not justified without proper investigation into the circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as the conditions of the first proviso to Section 147 were not met, as there was no failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also found the addition on merits to be unjustified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the disallowances. The assessee's failure to provide evidence for the nature of expenses and TDS compliance led to the dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate their claims regarding the cash deposits or their contention that the accounts were used for accommodation entries. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the interest liability crystallized only in the current assessment year due to the dispute and the lender's realization of dues. Since the assessee did not claim the expense in prior years and the lender did not recognize income then, disallowing the expense was unjustified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing that technicalities should not prevail over substantial justice. It was held that the penalty, being consequential to the quantum appeal, would not survive once the quantum appeal was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the disallowances. The assessee's failure to provide evidence for the nature of expenses and TDS compliance led to the dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for calculating disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the Principal CIT's revisionary action was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee is directed to produce the directors of the subscriber companies for verification, after which the AO will pass a fresh assessment order.