Loading ITAT cases…
230 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the issue of concessional sale of sugar to members is a recurring dispute that has been restored to the Assessing Officer by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the present appeal is also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2019-20, if employee contributions to PF/ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, such amounts are deductible. The amendment inserting Explanation 2 to Section 43B, which disallows such deductions if not deposited by the statutory due date, is applicable prospectively from AY 2021-22.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employee contributions to provident fund are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, they are deductible under Section 43B. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, employee contributions to provident fund deposited before the due date of filing the return of income are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2019-20, if employee contributions to PF/ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, they are deductible. The amendment inserting Explanation 2 to Section 43B, which disallows such payments if not made by the statutory due date, is applicable prospectively from AY 2021-22.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2019-20, if employee contributions to provident fund are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, they are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, inserting Explanation 2 to section 43B, is prospective and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which allows for the levy of fee for delayed filing of TDS statements, was amended to include this provision effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, they are deductible. This is because the amendment inserting Explanation 2 to Section 43B, which disallows such deductions if not deposited by the statutory due date, is applicable prospectively from AY 2021-22.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to pinpoint any specific violation of the three statutory conditions required for imposing penalty under Section 271AAA. Relying on a Gujarat High Court decision, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue of sundry creditors requires fresh verification by the Assessing Officer as no remand report was filed. The assessee was directed to get the credits verified within three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of brokerage expenses, including the provision for brokerage. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to verify the recipients of the commission and to establish that the liability was ascertained and foreseen.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn as per the provisions of the Act.
The Tribunal held that subvention money receipts are capital in nature and not taxable, following previous judgments. It also restored the transfer pricing adjustment issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation and verification.
The Tribunal held that subvention money receipts are capital in nature and not taxable, following previous judgments. It also restored the transfer pricing adjustment issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation and verification.
The Tribunal held that the rectification applications were filed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under section 154(7) of the Act. Since no relaxation was granted by the CBDT, the rejection of the applications by the lower authorities was upheld.
The tribunal held that M/s. E-Infochips Ltd. was not a valid comparable due to amalgamation. The other three companies (M/s. Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd., Exilant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and E-Infochips Ltd.) were excluded for being engaged in different activities and lack of financial data.
The Tribunal held that the rectification applications were filed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under section 154(7) of the Act. Since no relaxation was granted by the CBDT, the rejection of the applications by the lower authorities was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the rectification applications were filed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under section 154(7) of the Act. Since no relaxation was granted by the CBDT, the rejection of the applications by the lower authorities was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was invalid because it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was being invoked. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide confirmations for the remaining sundry creditors of Rs. 16,60,697/-. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved overwhelming circumstances for making cash payments due to the nature of his business and the location of his customers. The disallowance was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous as a consequence.
The assessee's representative filed a withdrawal application for both appeals. The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the amended Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which came into effect from 01.07.2012, was applicable. Therefore, the AO's action of referring the determination of the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the land as on 01.04.1981 to the DVO was not infirm.
The assessee's representative filed a withdrawal application for both appeals. The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that Section 271F is applicable only for failure to furnish a return of income as required under Section 139(1) and not for non-compliance with a notice under Section 148. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271F for non-compliance with Section 148 was invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' actions, finding that the assessee failed to explain the sources of the unexplained investments and cash credits on merits. Arguments regarding the invalidity of the assessment due to a missing Section 143(2) notice and the non-maintenance of books of accounts were rejected.
The Tribunal held that Section 271F is applicable only for failure to furnish a return of income under Section 139(1). The penalty levied for non-compliance with Section 148 was therefore invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to genuine reasons. It held that the appellant deserves another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the registration application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the jurisdictional AO for verification of the service tax payment claim. The AO was directed to deal with the issue in accordance with law after providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.