Loading ITAT cases…
409 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the share transactions were not genuine and were used to generate bogus long-term capital gains. The gains were therefore rightly added as unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue to the Tribunal to Rs. 50.00 lakhs. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question (2017-18), the deduction for employees' contribution to EPF/ESI deposited after the due date but before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, which disallowed such deductions, is not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that since the deposit was made before the due date for filing the return of income, and the assessment year was prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the disallowance was not warranted. The deduction should be allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the gross profit on the impugned purchases should be added. The Assessing Officer failed to bring material evidence to disprove the genuineness of purchases or payments made through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, which is prior to the amendment effective from AY 2021-22, the deduction is allowable if the deposit is made before the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question (prior to the Finance Act, 2021 amendment), if the employees' contribution was deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, the deduction is allowable. Therefore, the disallowance was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was vitiated due to the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2). Following a previous order for AY 2010-11 with similar facts, the assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the disallowance of the difference between interest paid and interest received. This was based on the principle that the assessee had not established business expediency for advancing funds to the sister concern.
The Tribunal held that a provision for a liability can be allowed as a deduction only if there is some material to support the estimation of such a provision. Since the assessee failed to provide any such supportive material, the deduction claim was not allowed.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if the employees' share of EPF and ESI contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance could be made.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory pre-condition for framing an assessment under Section 147, and it must be issued after the filing of the return. Section 292BB does not cure the defect of non-issuance of such a notice.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if the employees' share of EPF and ESI contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance could be made.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was vitiated due to the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2). Following a previous order for AY 2010-11 with similar facts, the assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without clear evidence of the assessee being served notice for the lower appellate proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the department, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the limit to Rs. 50.00 lakhs.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to EPF/ESI are deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), such amounts are allowable as deductions. The disallowance made by the AO was therefore directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits are applicable to pending appeals and therefore, it was not inclined to entertain the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's contention regarding exceptions to the monetary limits was not supported by precedent.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if the employees' share of EPF and ESI contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance could be made.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if the employees' share of EPF and ESI contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance could be made.
The Tribunal held that Section 28(v) deals with the taxability of interest received by a partner from a firm, not the deductibility of interest paid. Deductibility of interest is governed by Section 36(1)(iii), which requires the borrowed capital to be used for business purposes. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine the deductibility based on the 'user criterion' of Section 36(1)(iii).
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the mechanism for its computation under Section 200A, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, no such fee could be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the mechanism for its computation under Section 200A, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, no such fee could be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the mechanism for its computation under Section 200A, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, no such fee could be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vitiated as it did not strike out the inapplicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty proceedings were invalid, and the penalty imposed was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vitiated as it did not strike out the inapplicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty proceedings were invalid, and the penalty imposed was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vitiated as it did not strike out the inapplicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty proceedings were invalid, and the penalty imposed was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vitiated as it did not strike out the inapplicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty proceedings were invalid, and the penalty imposed was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the mechanism for its computation under Section 200A, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, no such fee could be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vitiated as it did not strike out the inapplicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty proceedings were invalid, and the penalty imposed was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively. However, it found that the demerger was not for a genuine purpose but solely to avail tax benefits, thus reversing the CIT(A)'s decision on the set-off of losses.
The Tribunal held that since the amounts were deposited before the due date for filing returns under Section 139(1) and the assessment years were prior to the Finance Act, 2021 amendment, the disallowance was not warranted. The additions were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the amounts were deposited before the due date for filing returns under Section 139(1) and the assessment years were prior to the Finance Act, 2021 amendment, the disallowance was not warranted. The additions were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2018-19, the disallowance was not warranted as the amounts were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, which impacts such disallowances, is applicable from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disbelieving the explanation offered by the assessee merely because the creditworthiness of the creditors was doubted. The addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application and the Revenue's no objection. Since the assessee had settled the tax liability under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A of the Act is applicable only from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the demand raised for periods prior to this date is not valid.
The tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A of the Act is applicable only from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the demand raised for periods prior to this date is not valid.
The tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A of the Act is applicable only from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the demand raised for periods prior to this date is not valid.
The tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A of the Act is applicable only from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the demand raised for periods prior to this date is not valid.
The tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A of the Act is applicable only from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the demand raised for periods prior to this date is not valid.
The tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A of the Act is applicable only from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the demand raised for periods prior to this date is not valid.
The tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A of the Act is applicable only from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the demand raised for periods prior to this date is not valid.
The tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A of the Act is applicable only from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the demand raised for periods prior to this date is not valid.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was justified in invoking Section 263 as the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The explanation regarding the cash introduction was found unacceptable.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2018-19, the disallowance made for late deposit of employees' contribution to EPF/ESI, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, was not warranted. The amendment inserting Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) was effective from AY 2021-22 and thus not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the employees' contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment by Explanation (1) to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year in question.