Loading ITAT cases…
460 tribunal orders from the Cuttack bench in 2017.
Showing 40 of 460 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that taxing the income while also reducing the pre-operative expenses by the same amount constituted double taxation. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition of 10% of expenditure due to non-production of vouchers was justified. However, regarding TDS, the Tribunal found that the applicability of Section 194C depended on the assessee's gross receipts and audit requirements, which were not properly examined.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested a reference to the DVO, claiming the fair market value was Rs. 70,00,000/- and the stamp duty value was higher. The AO and CIT(A) had not accepted this plea. The DR, when queried by the bench about the failure to refer the matter to the DVO, could not provide a satisfactory response. Considering the need for substantial justice, the Tribunal was of the view that the matter should be restored to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to re-adjudicate the issue of Long Term Capital Gain afresh after obtaining a valuation report from the DVO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that advances given for tour and travel expenses are on an estimate basis and do not need to match actual expenditure. Since the AO did not find the confirmations from the companies to be false, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs, finding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the lender, Shri Babaji Charan Sahu, given the significant time gap and lack of supporting documents. The Tribunal also confirmed the addition of Rs. 50,000/-, as the assessee could not provide proper confirmations with full addresses and PANs before the AO or the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were not valid. The CIT(A) correctly observed that the AO's reasons lacked specific information about escaped income and were based on suspicion rather than a 'reason to believe'.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to substantiate its claims before the lower authorities but had filed new evidence before the Tribunal. Considering principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were not valid. The CIT(A) correctly observed that the AO's reasons lacked specific information about escaped income and were based on suspicion rather than a 'reason to believe'.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without proof of service of hearing notices. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were not valid. The CIT(A) correctly observed that the AO's reasons lacked specific information about escaped income and were based on suspicion rather than a 'reason to believe'.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not established whether the notices were served on the assessee before dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This lack of clarity indicated a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were not valid. The CIT(A) correctly observed that the AO's reasons lacked specific information about escaped income and were based on suspicion rather than a 'reason to believe'.
The Tribunal acknowledged a new certificate filed by the assessee and, with the agreement of both parties, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT observed that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) on multiple hearing dates. To ensure substantial justice, the ITAT granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to EPF & ESI, if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as deductions. The Tribunal followed various High Court decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 11,000 to the department for the non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to EPF & ESI, if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as deductions. The Tribunal followed various High Court decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking powers under Section 263 as the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the AO's lack of inquiry. The Tribunal upheld the revision order.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately examined the issues. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted all the disputed issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present its case with relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of registration solely on the ground of potential violations of Section 13(1)(c) was not justified, especially when the objects of the society were charitable and no specific non-genuine activities were pointed out. The violations of Section 13 are to be examined by the Assessing Officer during assessment, not as a bar to registration.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately examined the issues. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted all the disputed issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present its case with relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest deduction was justified as Form 15G was misused. However, the addition of loan amounts was deleted as the AO failed to bring material on record to disprove the creditworthiness of the loan creditors beyond suspicion.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses for two agents due to unserved summons and lack of clarity on payment basis. The disallowance of foreign travel expenses was confirmed due to insufficient evidence of business purpose. The disallowance on erection and contract payment was upheld due to contradictions between the agreement and TDS form. The disallowance on other expenses was reduced to 10% by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not confronting the remand reports to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request for substantial justice and the possibility of no loss to the revenue, restored the appeal to the CIT(A). However, a cost of Rs. 11,000 was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12, dismissing both the assessee's and revenue's appeals. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal remanded one issue regarding an advance to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and confirmed other additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12, dismissing both the assessee's and revenue's appeals. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal remanded one issue regarding an advance to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and confirmed other additions.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the grounds for refusal by the CIT(E) were irrelevant and beyond the scope of enquiry under Section 12AA. The absence of a specific amendment clause requiring CIT(E) approval and the prohibition of investments violating Section 13(1)(d) r.w.s. 11(5) in the trust deed do not warrant refusal.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, as required by law and confirmed by the Supreme Court, renders the penalty order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the grounds for refusal by the CIT(E) were irrelevant and beyond the scope of enquiry under Section 12AA. The absence of a specific amendment clause requiring CIT(E) approval and the prohibition of investments violating Section 13(1)(d) r.w.s. 11(5) in the trust deed do not warrant refusal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in disposing of the appeal ex-parte when no notice of hearing was served on the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to support its claim that a portion of the grant was for the subsequent year or to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, as required by law, indicates a non-application of mind. This makes the penalty order unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's claim for cash discount was not fully substantiated, a complete disallowance was not warranted. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed a partial deduction by estimating the cash discount at 1% of sales.
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective and remanded the issue of TDS non-deduction for verification of payee's tax payment. For EPF contributions, the Tribunal held that deposits made before the return filing date are allowable deductions, following various High Court decisions.
The tribunal held that an assessment order passed on a dead person without complying with the provisions of Section 159(2) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable. Proceedings for assessment can only be continued against the legal representative if initiated when the assessee was alive.