Loading ITAT cases…
25 tribunal orders from the Ranchi bench in 2022.
Showing 25 of 25 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations and evidence regarding stock discrepancies and unexplained creditors were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses, being mandatory under the Companies Act, 2013, should be allowed as a deduction. The amendment to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, introducing Explanation 2, was not retrospective and did not apply to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and that the AO had not pointed out specific defects. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had considered materials not fully examined by the AO.
The Tribunal held that there is no provision preventing additions for sundry creditors and disallowance of expenditure if the net profit is above 5%, provided the assessee is not under presumptive taxation. The assessee's failure to furnish details led to the dismissal of the grounds.
The Tribunal held that the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee was bogus and arranged through accommodation entry providers to reduce tax liability. The assessee's director had also admitted to arranging this bogus loss.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT was barred by limitation. The issue of share premium was examined in the original assessment and was not part of the reassessment proceedings, thus the limitation period for revision runs from the original assessment order.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the income tax return, no disallowance is warranted. The revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was not obtained from the prescribed authority (PCIT instead of JCIT) beyond four years, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was not obtained from the prescribed authority (PCIT instead of JCIT) beyond four years, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided the appeal on merits after hearing the Ld. DR, noting the assessee's non-cooperation and untraceability. The Tribunal upheld the order of the AO.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to EPF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return, the deduction is allowable. For one appeal, a ground regarding service tax payment was admitted and remitted for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition for undisclosed turnover as it was based on arithmetical mistakes by the AO. Similarly, the addition under Section 41(1) for increase in capital was deleted as the CIT(A) correctly held that the provisions were erroneously invoked. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to EPF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return, the deduction is allowable. For one appeal, a ground regarding service tax payment was admitted and remitted for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disclosure of the cash amount as additional income by a director proved the transaction was not genuine. It also upheld that share application money falls under the purview of Section 269SS, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not pressed before the CIT(A) but was raised before the Tribunal. Given the settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme for the related TDS demand, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to grant consequential relief.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the dispute was no longer alive due to the subsequent order, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that investment in an under-construction house within three years from the sale of the original property is admissible for deduction under Section 54F. The provision is beneficial and should be liberally construed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the time extension amount, finding the AO's approach unjustifiable. It also allowed the appeal concerning labour and material charges, stating no TDS was required for material purchases and direct hiring of labour. However, the appeal regarding disallowance of interest and remuneration to partners was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction. The disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction. The disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the Explanation-5 to Section 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration. The deposit before the return filing date was sufficient for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the Explanation-5 to Section 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration. The deposit before the return filing date was sufficient for deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the addition on the horticulture contract, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details to justify the declared profit. However, the Tribunal allowed the deduction for interest income earned from the Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank, as it qualified under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the facts correctly. The interest was incurred on mobilization advances as per contract terms, not penal interest. Following a coordinate bench's decision for an earlier assessment year, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the Assessing Officer had passed a subsequent order resolving the disputed issue.