ITAT Cuttack Judgments — February 2017

SPARSH,RAYAGADA vs CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

ITA 277/CTK/2015[]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2017Allowed

The Tribunal found no specific error in the regularity of the assessee's accounts. The CIT(Exemptions) failed to provide material to show that the recorded liabilities were not actual or that expenditures were not properly accounted for. Therefore, the CIT's inference was deemed incorrect and arbitrary.

YUVODAYA CHARITABLE TRUST,BOLANGIR vs ACIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

ITA 389/CTK/2016[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2017AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the mere existence of non-educational objects in the trust deed is not sufficient to deny exemption if the trust is actually functioning solely for educational purposes. The CIT(Exemptions) failed to provide material evidence that the other objects were primary and not ancillary.

ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs BISWAJIT DAS, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 473/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the beneficiation process of chrome ore resulted in a product with a different chemical composition and character, thus qualifying as manufacturing. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,88,761/- related to commission payment, as it would increase the eligible profit for Section 10B deduction.

BISWAJIT DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs ITO, WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 493/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the beneficiation process of chrome ore resulted in a product with a different chemical composition and character, thus qualifying as manufacturing. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,88,761/- related to commission payment, as it would increase the eligible profit for Section 10B deduction.

DEEPAK KUMAR SAHOO,BALASORE vs JCIT, BALASORE RANGE, BALASORE

ITA 115/CTK/2016[2008-09]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2017AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271E is not leviable for technical breaches of Section 269T if the transactions are genuine and not aimed at disclosing concealed income. The assessee's return was accepted after scrutiny, and no finding of mala fide intent was made.

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs RUTU RAJA ROUT, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 216/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Dismissed

The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction if the recipient parties had reported the income and paid taxes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no specific error pointed out by the revenue.

SOURAV ALLOYS AND STEEL PVT. LTD.,ANGUL vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 233/CTK/2016[2006-07]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2017AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for completing a reassessment under Section 147, and its absence renders the assessment invalid. The Tribunal found that no such notice was issued in this case, and the defect is not curable.