Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the depreciation claim was to be based on the WDV of the erstwhile entity, as per ITAT precedents. It also upheld the disallowance of employee contributions to EPF and ESIC for non-compliance with due date for deposit, following Supreme Court judgment.
The tribunal held that the application for AY 2013-14 was indeed belated. However, following precedents, it directed the CIT(Exemption) to consider the application as filed for the succeeding year (AY 2019-20) and onwards, allowing the assessee an opportunity to rectify defects.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed furnished the required information multiple times. The CIT's rejection was based on a misconception. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that the application for AY 2013-14 was indeed belated. However, following precedents, it directed the CIT(Exemption) to consider the application as filed for the succeeding year (AY 2019-20) and onwards, allowing the assessee an opportunity to rectify defects.
The Tribunal held that the depreciation claim was to be based on the WDV of the erstwhile entity, as per ITAT precedents. It also upheld the disallowance of employee contributions to EPF and ESIC for non-compliance with due date for deposit, following Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention regarding the violation of Rule 46A. Since additional evidence was accepted by the CIT(A) without the AO's examination, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not warranted if no interest-bearing funds were used for investments, no other expenses were incurred for earning exempt income, and the exempt income earned is minimal. However, since the AO had taken a higher figure for exempt income, the issue was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding addition to partners' capital as not pressed. It also dismissed the revenue's grounds concerning customs duty valuation and business promotion expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions. The assessee's ground regarding sales commission disallowance was not explicitly mentioned as decided in the provided text, but the overall outcome suggests it was resolved in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding addition to partners' capital as not pressed. It also dismissed the revenue's grounds concerning customs duty valuation and business promotion expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions. The assessee's ground regarding sales commission disallowance was not explicitly mentioned as decided in the provided text, but the overall outcome suggests it was resolved in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The assessee's authorized representative sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee and did not adjudicate the case on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, which are held in trust, must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant law to be eligible for deduction. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not override this essential condition.