Loading ITAT cases…
121 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the due date for payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance made by the CIT(A). It found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments and that the disallowance under Section 115JB was also not applicable based on a High Court ruling in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the amount was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable 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 and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the disallowance was not warranted as the payments were made before the filing of the return of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding the COVID-19 period. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn upon the assessee's request.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order and, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., held that strict compliance with Section 36(1)(va) is mandatory for claiming deduction on employees' PF/ESI contributions, even if deposited before the return filing due date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's inadvertent mistake in claiming relief under the wrong section due to the limitations of ITR-1 should be rectified. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get an opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) or the AO. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, the Explanation-5 to Section 43B, which disallows such contributions if not deposited before the due date under the respective acts, was not applicable. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. M/s Vijay Shree Limited.
For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee PF contributions and officers' club expenses was not justified, as the AO had taken a plausible view. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's action to verify whether the assessee had received a specific interest refund, as the ITS data indicated it was paid.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for delivery charges, noting that cash payments up to Rs. 35,000 for plying goods carriages were permissible. However, the addition for under-valuation of closing stock was confirmed as carriage inward should be included in its cost.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, the Explanation-5 to Section 43B, which disallows such contributions if not deposited before the due date under the respective acts, was not applicable. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. M/s Vijay Shree Limited.
For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee PF contributions and officers' club expenses was not justified, as the AO had taken a plausible view. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's action to verify whether the assessee had received a specific interest refund, as the ITS data indicated it was paid.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for delivery charges, noting that cash payments up to Rs. 35,000 for plying goods carriages were permissible. However, the addition for under-valuation of closing stock was confirmed as carriage inward should be included in its cost.
The Tribunal found that the issues concerning rent disallowance, depreciation, and repair expenses required fresh examination by the AO. The AO was directed to re-examine these issues, provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the disallowance of employees' PF and ESI contributions not paid within the due dates, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question (2017-18), payments made before the due date of filing the return of income were allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that procedural technicalities should not deny substantial justice. Following its coordinate bench's decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 159, income of a deceased person is assessable in the hands of the legal representative. Therefore, the claim of TDS against the interest income shown by the assessee in his return should be allowed.