Loading ITAT cases…
79 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide and reasonable. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of TDS as it was duly appearing in Form 26AS. The issue was restored to the AO for verification and allowance after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for service tax needs examination by the AO as the assessee claims it was not routed through the P&L account. The disallowance for employer's contribution to PF/ESI was deleted as it was paid before the due date of filing the return. The disallowance for employee's contribution to PF/ESI was also deleted based on judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowing the lower of book loss or unabsorbed depreciation for book profit computation is debatable and cannot be rectified under Section 154. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim to be correct and in consonance with the provisions of Section 115JB.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and not new information, and was also beyond the four-year period without fulfilling the conditions of the first proviso to Section 147.
The Tribunal held that the 'net consideration' for Section 54F purposes should be the actual sale proceeds received, not the deemed value under Section 50C. Therefore, the entire capital gain should be exempt if the net consideration is fully invested in the new asset.
The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, meant the provision was never on the statute book. Therefore, any proceedings or adjustments based on it were invalid, and the addition made on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment was deleted.
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, the disallowance was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of foreign travel expenses was ad hoc and not based on specific reasons, and that dividend income from shares held as stock-in-trade is exempt under Section 10(34) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, meant the provision was never on the statute book. Therefore, any proceedings or adjustments based on it were invalid, and the addition made on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment was deleted.
The tribunal noted that the assessee was not pressing its grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The tribunal noted that the assessee was not pressing its grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had misinterpreted Section 11(2) and 11(3)(c) of the Act. It clarified that unutilized income set apart under Section 11(2) can be spent in the 6th year, failing which it can be taxed in the 7th year, not the 6th year as observed by the PCIT.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, if employees' contributions to PF & ESI are paid before the due date of filing the income tax return, the deduction is allowable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the due date for payment of employees' contribution to PF & 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 held that for Assessment Year 2019-20, the employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is allowable as a deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to this assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that since the assessee had paid the due taxes and the settlement was finalized, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to resolution under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeal pending and dismissed it as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, payments of employees' contribution to ESI and PF made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as a deduction. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective in nature.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that employee PF/ESI contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return are allowable. It also allowed the appeal regarding the ICDS adjustment due to a typographical error in the tax audit report and deleted the addition for club subscription expenses, citing previous judgments.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2021-22, the jurisdictional High Court's view that employee contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as a deduction, holds good. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the land was not a capital asset. The AO's rejection of the assessee's valuation reports and determination of the cost of acquisition based on purchase deeds and market value was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the genuineness and creditworthiness of share subscribers. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were rightly initiated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the land was not a capital asset. The AO's rejection of the assessee's valuation reports and determination of the cost of acquisition based on purchase deeds and market value was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in exercising powers under Section 263 as he did not record a categorical finding that the recipients were not registered under Section 80G, nor did he verify this fact. The Pr. CIT's reasoning was based on a distinction between CSR and donation, which was not sufficient to deem the assessment order erroneous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the marked-to-market loss on forward contracts is not notional and is eligible for set-off. It also held that transformers, switchyards, and chimneys are integral parts of a co-generation power system, allowing 80% depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly initiated penalty proceedings under both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) as the facts regarding bogus share capital were discussed. The assessee's failure to appear or provide explanations further supported the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had the right to choose the Discounted Free Cash Flow (DCF) method for valuation, and the AO could not arbitrarily change it to NAV. However, the assessee failed to provide sufficient scientific basis and supporting data for its DCF valuation.