Loading ITAT cases…
376 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not warranted as the deposit was made before the due date for filing the return of income. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, which would have disallowed such deposits, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c) allowing levy of fee under Section 234E was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, the fee could only be levied for defaults committed after this date, not prior.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which provides for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date, not prior to it.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c) allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fees can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.
The Tribunal held that since the deposits were made before the due date for filing the return of income, and the assessment years were prior to the amendment effective from AY 2021-22, the disallowances were not warranted.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which provides for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date, not prior to it.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2019-20, which is prior to the amendment effective from AY 2021-22, the deduction is allowable if the employees' share of EPF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 263 by directing the AO to go beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. The AO correctly inquired into the specified issues, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the property was held as an investment, not stock-in-trade, based on its treatment as a fixed asset in earlier years and earning rental income. Therefore, the sale was to be taxed as capital gains, not business income.
The Tribunal held that since the deposits were made before the due date for filing the return of income, and the assessment years were prior to the amendment effective from AY 2021-22, the disallowances were not warranted.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c) allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fees can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c) allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fees can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c) allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fees can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.
The Tribunal held that the property was held as an investment, not stock-in-trade, based on its treatment as a fixed asset in earlier years and earning rental income. Therefore, the sale was to be taxed as capital gains, not business income.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals related to the same issues had been restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty appeals, being consequential, must also follow suit.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's explicit request to withdraw the appeal, stating they did not wish to press the matter. The Revenue did not object to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The principle derived is that an assessee has the right to withdraw their appeal, provided the revenue does not object, and the Tribunal will grant such permission. No specific issue was decided on merits, and the operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to conduct adequate inquiries regarding the agricultural income, including verification of 'other' crops and sale patties, rendered the assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside, and the AO was directed to frame the assessment de novo.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals related to the same issues had been restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty appeals, being consequential, must also follow suit.
The Tribunal held that concessions on mixed questions of fact and law cannot decide cases, and the assessee is entitled to challenge issues in appeal. The interest and processing fees were deemed allowable business expenses.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80P, any disallowance of expenses would lead to an enhancement of business income eligible for such deduction. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in reversing the Assessing Officer's addition.
The Tribunal held that only the peak balance of the undeclared bank accounts could be added to the total income, and the profit from those transactions should be taxed at the normal rate. The addition for unexplained gold jewellery investment was deleted as it was considered inventory in a presumptive taxation case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed evidence before the lower authorities and required assistance to support her claims. Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's explanation for the delay, stating that merely shifting offices does not constitute a valid reason for such a significant delay. The Tribunal found the explanation to be casual and lacking evidence.
The Tribunal found that while the AO correctly applied the provisions of IDS 2016 regarding non-payment of tax, the matter required further factual verification regarding the assessee's entitlement to exemption. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to conduct adequate inquiries regarding the agricultural income, including verification of 'other' crops and sale patties, rendered the assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside, and the AO was directed to frame the assessment de novo.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, such amounts are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The tribunal held that Section 234E, as amended by the Finance Act 2015, can only be levied for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees for periods prior to this date cannot be imposed.
The tribunal held that Section 234E, as amended by the Finance Act 2015, can only be levied for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees for periods prior to this date cannot be imposed.
The tribunal held that Section 234E, as amended by the Finance Act 2015, can only be levied for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees for periods prior to this date cannot be imposed.
The tribunal held that Section 234E, as amended by the Finance Act 2015, can only be levied for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees for periods prior to this date cannot be imposed.
The tribunal held that Section 234E, as amended by the Finance Act 2015, can only be levied for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees for periods prior to this date cannot be imposed.
The tribunal held that Section 234E, as amended by the Finance Act 2015, can only be levied for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees for periods prior to this date cannot be imposed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were made before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which made such contributions disallowable if not paid by the statutory due date, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal found that the matter required detailed factual verification and adjudication on merits. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the year to which these expenses pertain for proper taxation.
The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal regarding the 'C to F wings' of the project is allowed, as the assessee failed to prove completion of amenities before the stipulated date. The appeals concerning 'A, B, and G wings' were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was amended effective June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.