Loading ITAT cases…
420 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantiated the claim for interest expenditure with documentary evidence, including rental agreements and loan details. The lower authorities had overlooked the genuineness of the claim.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was correctly made as the employees' contribution to PF/ESI must be paid within the due dates prescribed by the respective statutes for deduction under Section 36(1)(va). Provisions of Section 43B cannot be read into Section 36(1)(va).
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years was invalid as the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts. The reopening was based on a change of opinion by the AO, not on any new material, making the reassessment unsustainable.
The Tribunal clarified that the appeal filed by the assessee was indeed dismissed. This corrigendum was issued to correct a typographical error in the previous order.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee. A cost of Rs. 1000 was imposed on the assessee for his non-cooperation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was rightly made as the employees' contribution to PF/ESI must be paid within the due dates prescribed by the respective statutes to be eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(va). This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 should be excluded for limitation purposes as per the Supreme Court's order. Therefore, the appeal was not delayed. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on delay was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's view on the section 35(2AB) deduction, finding the AO did not conduct due verification regarding Form 3CL. However, it set aside the PCIT's orders on sections 35(1) and 80G, finding the PCIT misdirected on 35(1) and the 80G issue debatable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, noting that the tax effect in these cases was below ₹.50 Lakhs, making the appeals not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous years based on the principle of mutuality.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, noting that the tax effect in these cases was below ₹.50 Lakhs, making the appeals not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous years based on the principle of mutuality.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, noting that the tax effect in these cases was below ₹.50 Lakhs, making the appeals not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous years based on the principle of mutuality.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not fully comply with the directions of the High Court and failed to analyze all submissions in light of the High Court's observations. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order, agreeing that a subsequent Supreme Court decision clarifying the law on delayed payments of employee's PF/ESIC contributions can be a basis for rectification. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed following the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the objections without giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the verification defect violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessee was directed to refile the objections before the DRP, duly verified.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the objections without giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the verification defect violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessee was directed to refile the objections before the DRP, duly verified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's written submissions. The Tribunal decided the appeal on merits, stating that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13, the reimbursements were taxable as FTS, following a coordinate bench decision. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal upheld the taxability of reimbursements as FTS. The appeals were partly allowed on other grounds.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Assessing Officer had applied his mind and considered the information provided by the assessee, and the mere absence of elaborate discussion in the assessment order does not imply non-application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.