Loading ITAT cases…
70 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be calculated only on the investment that yielded exempted income, following the ratio of the Calcutta High Court in REI Agro Ltd. The disallowance was restricted to 0.5% of the investment in MSP Steel & Power Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the due taxes. Since there was no objection from the Revenue, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate enquiry regarding the investment in unquoted equity shares, and the investment was disclosed in the audited balance sheet. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the deduction for the delayed payments.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought in 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 years in question (2017-18 and 2018-19), 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 held that disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to Rs. 1,04,317 for AY 2014-15, based on judicial precedents and the assessee's own calculations, considering shares held as stock-in-trade. For AY 2013-14, the disallowance was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the deduction for the delayed payments.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the deduction for the delayed payments.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries on two issues and the third issue was based on incorrect facts. Furthermore, no addition was made in reassessment, precluding additions on new issues without a fresh notice.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to Rs. 1,04,317 for AY 2014-15, based on judicial precedents and the assessee's own calculations, considering shares held as stock-in-trade. For AY 2013-14, the disallowance was partly allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the error and issued a corrigendum to correct the PAN number. The impugned order is modified to reflect the correct PAN.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought in 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 years in question (2017-18 and 2018-19), 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 held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the deduction for the delayed payments.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it fell within the scope of the CBDT circular regarding tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CPC cannot make adjustments under section 143(1)(a) when there is a dispute of fact regarding the property's valuation. Such disputes require inquiry by the Assessing Officer, potentially involving a reference to the DVO.
The Tribunal held that the club expenditure should be allowed based on the rule of consistency, as it was incurred for business purposes and allowed in prior years. Regarding PF & ESI contributions, the Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective, and thus, contributions 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 to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for AY 2017-18, the assessee's claim is allowable if remitted before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from term deposits with banks, not from members or other cooperative societies, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's claim of not receiving notices. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back for a fresh decision.