Loading ITAT cases…
45 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal noted that an order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Department was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation. The appeals were directed to be decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation. The appeals were directed to be decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which relied on the Supreme Court's judgment. The disallowance of delayed employee PF/ESI contributions, when deposited before the return filing date, is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which relied on the Supreme Court's judgment. Therefore, the disallowance needs to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which relied on the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, the disallowance of EPF and ESI contributions made before the return filing due date is deleted.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is allowable if deposited before the filing of the return, relying on High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was noted as prospective.
The Tribunal held that the appeals could be disposed of on merits at the appellate level, as sufficient material was available. It followed its own precedents and allowed the deduction for delayed deposit of employee contributions to ESI and PF, as the amendment clarifying this position was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which relied on the Supreme Court's judgment. The disallowance of delayed employee PF/ESI contributions, when deposited before the return filing date, is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was contrary to the law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Jurisdictional High Court. The contributions, though deposited late, were made before the filing of the return, and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESIC and EPF, when deposited before the filing of the return, is not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the position, was made applicable prospectively.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which relied on Supreme Court judgments. The amendment by the Finance Act 2021 was prospective and did not affect the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is allowable if deposited before the filing of the return, relying on High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was noted as prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, relying on High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was noted as prospective.
The Tribunal held that the employee contributions, though deposited late as per the respective statutes, but before the due date of filing the return of income, are allowable as per the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court. The subsequent amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not retrospective for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the appeals could be disposed of on merits at the appellate level, as sufficient material was available. It followed its own precedents and allowed the deduction for delayed deposit of employee contributions to ESI and PF, as the amendment clarifying this position was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is allowable if deposited before the due date of filing the return, following jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective and did not affect the current assessment year.
The tribunal held that the CIT's order was against the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings due to the absence of any submissions from the assessees to counter the adverse findings.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings due to the absence of any submissions from the assessees to counter the lower appellate authority's decision.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which relied on the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, the disallowance of EPF and ESI contributions made before the return filing due date is deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, relying on High Court judgments which followed Supreme Court decisions. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was noted as prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unjustified. Following its own precedents and the jurisdictional High Court's decision, it ruled that employee contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable expenses.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, employee contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return of income were allowable expenses. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the assessee had filed the audit report subsequently. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 689 and judicial precedent, the Tribunal allowed rectification.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the assessee had filed the audit report subsequently. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 689 and judicial precedent, the Tribunal allowed rectification.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, citing CBDT Circular No. 689 which permits rectification under Section 154 for subsequent filing of evidence like audit reports. The Tribunal relied on a Karnataka High Court judgment that supported this view.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, citing CBDT Circular No. 689 which permits rectification under Section 154 for subsequent filing of evidence like audit reports. The Tribunal relied on a Karnataka High Court judgment that supported this view.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the Department. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the matter requires reconsideration by the CIT(Exemptions) to re-examine the reasons for the delay in filing Form 10 and the investment of accumulated funds. The CIT(Exemptions) needs to verify if the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause and if the investments were made as per Section 11(5).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and tax arrears were settled. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was because the assessee had since obtained approval under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the assessee had no further grievance after the Assessing Officer's subsequent order, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was due to amendments in sections 80G and the insertion of section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, necessitating fresh registration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted as the assessee had obtained provisional registration.
The Tribunal held that the matter requires reconsideration by the CIT(Exemptions) to re-examine the reasons for the delay in filing Form 10 and the investment of accumulated funds. The CIT(Exemptions) needs to verify if the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause and if the investments were made as per Section 11(5).
The Tribunal held that the matter requires reconsideration by the CIT(Exemptions) to re-examine the reasons for the delay in filing Form 10 and the investment of accumulated funds. The CIT(Exemptions) needs to verify if the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause and if the investments were made as per Section 11(5).
The Tribunal held that the commodity derivatives transactions met the conditions of Section 43(5)(e) and were therefore not speculative. Consequently, the loss incurred was eligible to be set off against other business income as per Section 70(1).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision which relied on the Supreme Court's ruling. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective and did not affect the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted extensive inquiries and verified the evidence, making a plausible view that the land was agricultural and thus not a capital asset. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which relied on the Supreme Court's judgment. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective and did not affect the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to substantiate expenses despite opportunities. However, to meet the ends of justice, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of expenses with the help of vouchers and books of accounts. The AO was also directed to reconsider the allowability of donations, prior period expenses, and exceptional items.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by previous decisions of the Lucknow Bench, which allowed deduction for late deposit of employee PF contribution if made before the return filing due date. The amendments by Finance Act, 2021, were prospective.