Loading ITAT cases…
409 orders · Page 3 of 9
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.
The ITAT set aside the case to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity of hearing and to file necessary documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
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 levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was bad in law as the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy such fees under Section 200A. The amendment to Section 200A was prospective. Therefore, the late fees were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was bad in law as the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy such fees under Section 200A. The amendment to Section 200A was prospective. Therefore, the late fees were deleted.
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 condoned the delay of 931 days, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay and that it was an inadvertent mistake without malafide intention. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 931 days, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay and that it was an inadvertent mistake without malafide intention. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 931 days, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay and that it was an inadvertent mistake without malafide intention. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by way of Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, which defines 'due date', is not applicable to the assessment year 2017-18. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question (prior to the Finance Act, 2021 amendment), the deduction for employee contributions to EPF/ESI deposited after the due date but before the return filing date is allowable. The addition made by the AO was therefore directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular no. 17/2019 for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that rental income from unsold units of a builder is assessable as 'Income from house property', following a jurisdictional High Court precedent. For Section 14A, the disallowance of interest was not warranted, and the disallowance of 0.5% of average investments was to be restricted to the actual expenses claimed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the low tax effect, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the CBDT Circular.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for a fresh hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to consider all relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not warranted as the employees' share of EPF and ESI was deposited before the due date for filing the return of income. This position of law was applicable to the assessment year 2018-19, prior to the Finance Act, 2021 amendment.
The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. However, the Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) was not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue failed due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, if the employees' contribution to EPF/ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it is allowable as a deduction. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is not applicable to this assessment year.
The Tribunal followed the co-ordinate bench's decision, remitting the issues of excess cane price and sale of sugar at concessional rates back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on Supreme Court judgments. The issue of C-class membership was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular no. 17/2019 for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by way of Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, is not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It found that the reassessment order was not barred by limitation and that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the unaccounted expenditure and cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was not barred by limitation. It upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, unaccounted credit notes, and unexplained cash credits under Section 68, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted an explanation which the CIT(Exemption) overlooked. Therefore, the impugned order denying registration was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 931 days, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay and that it was an inadvertent mistake without malafide intention. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.
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 held that 'substantially financed' means government grants exceeding 50% of total receipts. As the university's government grants constituted only 41%, it was not eligible for the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by Explanation (1) inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2021 is not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Explanation (1) to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, effective from 01.04.2021, is not applicable to the assessment year 2019-20. Therefore, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that since the deposit was made before the due date of 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 position of law as set out by various High Courts was applied.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2019-20, the disallowance was not warranted as the employees' share of EPF and ESI was deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, as per existing law prior to the Finance Act, 2021 amendments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 931 days, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay and that it was an inadvertent mistake without malafide intention. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the reasons for the delay, such as non-availability of DSC or paucity of funds. In the absence of a bonafide explanation supported by evidence, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's no objection. Based on the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted the assessee's wish not to press the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly address the Assessing Officer's reasoning or gather evidence. It also noted that the CIT(A) applied a previous Tribunal decision without sufficient justification for its applicability to the current facts.
The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee was part of the consideration for the acquisition of shares, making it capital in nature. Furthermore, the expenditure was incurred in a prior financial year, making it ineligible for deduction in the current assessment year.
The tribunal noted the assessee's wish not to press the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA was not before it. It focused on whether miscellaneous receipts like VAT reimbursement and interest income qualified for the deduction. The Tribunal also referred to a coordinate bench decision regarding Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA was not before it. It focused on whether miscellaneous receipts like VAT reimbursement and interest income qualified for the deduction. The Tribunal also referred to a coordinate bench decision regarding Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department are applicable to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not entertained.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the principle of substantial justice. It further held that Section 234E fee could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per the amendment to Section 200A, and thus quashed the demand for the period prior to this date.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the principle of substantial justice. It further held that Section 234E fee could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per the amendment to Section 200A, and thus quashed the demand for the period prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that bogus purchases could only be restricted to the extent of the Gross Profit (GP) addition. The disallowance was restricted to a 10% GP margin, with a rider that it would not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that since the deposits were made before the due date for filing the return of income, the disallowance was not warranted for the assessment years prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021.
The Tribunal found that the AO's disallowance was based on an unsubstantiated 'trend' without providing plausible reasons for rejecting the assessee's detailed expenses. The addition was made in an ad hoc manner.
The Tribunal held that since the deposits were made before the due date for filing the return of income, the disallowance was not warranted for the assessment years prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021.
The Tribunal allowed the exclusion of damages incurred by the assessee as operating expenses, stating they were exceptional and not part of normal operations. It also allowed the exclusion of 'Megasoft Limited' as a comparable due to functional differences and a different financial year.
The Tribunal held that leasehold rights are not covered under the statutory definition of 'immovable property' as defined in Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was incorrect.