ITAT Kolkata Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the assessee is eligible for deduction. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court rulings and the prospective nature of Finance Act, 2021 amendments.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the assessee is eligible for deduction. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court rulings and the prospective nature of Finance Act, 2021 amendments.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, payments made before the due date of filing the return are allowable as a deduction. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the assessee is eligible for deduction. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court rulings and the prospective nature of Finance Act, 2021 amendments.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, payments made before the due date of filing the return are allowable as a deduction. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were made before the due date of filing the return. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, which would have made the disallowance applicable, was not retrospective and thus not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were made before the due date of filing the return, the disallowance was incorrect. The recent Explanation-5 to Section 43B was not applicable as it was prospective.

The Tribunal held that for the Assessment Year 2018-19, payments of employees' PF/ESI contributions made before the due date of filing the income tax return under Section 139(1) are allowable as deductions. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the current assessment year.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT passed two orders under Section 263 without proper application of mind and in violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, both orders were deemed unsustainable and set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the award was received in the last month of the financial year, there was no opportunity to deposit advance tax. Therefore, the levy of interest under Section 234C was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, following the jurisdictional High Court and its own co-ordinate bench decisions. It clarified that amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and do not apply to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that there was no justification for changing the head of income or making the addition for alleged expenditure. The lower authorities' actions were not supported by evidence, and the motive for such transactions was missing.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision that payments made before the return filing due date are allowable. The amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that initiating revisionary proceedings under Section 263 against a non-existent company is a substantive illegality and renders the proceedings and the consequent order void. The participation of the assessee in the proceedings does not cure this fundamental defect.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years was invalid because the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and there was no failure on the assessee's part. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice. The assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO relied heavily on survey findings without rejecting the assessee's audited books of accounts. Since the books were not faulted and the additions were based on estimation and surmises, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had rejected the assessee's valuation report without proper consideration. The market value of shares should be considered, not just the book value, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, if the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, if the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income-tax Act is prospective in nature. Therefore, it is not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to produce the directors and necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. It also found that the bonus payment was made before the due date for filing the return of income.

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 and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year under consideration (2018-19), the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal had previously allowed the assessee's appeal for the same assessment year by quashing the reopening of the assessment itself. Consequently, the penalty levied, which was based on the addition from the reopened assessment, was also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective 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) is prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, if the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for AY 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 and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year under consideration (2017-18), the disallowance was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had correctly offered only the net gain of Rs. 3,09,000 as taxable income. The addition of the premium amount of Rs. 10,00,000 was erroneous as it represented the assessee's investment, leading to 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 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 introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income-tax Act is prospective in nature. Therefore, it is not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for scrutiny assessments, including reassessments. Since no such notice was issued before the reassessment order, the AO lacked jurisdiction, rendering the order bad in law.

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 2017-18, the assessee's claim for deduction is allowable if the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the Explanation-2 introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Following previous judgments, it ruled that disallowance should not be made if the deposit was made before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' PF & ESI contributions paid before the return filing date was incorrect, following a co-ordinate bench decision. It also held that interest on delayed payment of service tax and TDS is allowable as a business expenditure.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any expenditure claimed by the assessee to reduce tax liability against exempt income, and without a direct nexus between claimed expenditure and exempt income, the Assessing Officer cannot invoke Section 14A. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to give effect to the CIT(A)'s order was a clear mistake apparent on record and negligent. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to give full appeal effect to the CIT(A)'s order and comply with its directions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' PF & ESI contributions paid before the return filing date was incorrect, following a co-ordinate bench decision. It also held that interest on delayed payment of service tax and TDS is allowable as a business expenditure.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, acknowledging that neither party was fully satisfied and a complete examination was needed.

For one appeal, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s dismissal, agreeing that the 143(1) intimation became infructuous due to the subsequent scrutiny assessment. For the other appeal, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing adjudication on merits, stating an appeal right cannot be denied by suggesting a rectification application.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, acknowledging that neither party was fully satisfied and a complete examination was needed.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after the assessee failed to produce the original trust deed and instead executed a new one. The CIT(E) rejected the application again, citing the lack of documents evidencing the trust's creation.

For one appeal, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s dismissal, agreeing that the 143(1) intimation became infructuous due to the subsequent scrutiny assessment. For the other appeal, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing adjudication on merits, stating an appeal right cannot be denied by suggesting a rectification application.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, acknowledging that neither party was fully satisfied and a complete examination was needed.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the issue had already been decided in their favour by the CIT(A) in a rectification order. The Revenue conceded to this request.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after the assessee failed to produce the original trust deed and instead executed a new one. The CIT(E) rejected the application again, citing the lack of documents evidencing the trust's creation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in cancelling the registration based on investments made before the registration was granted and before Section 11 and 12 became applicable. The cancellation order was found to be unjustified.