ITAT Cuttack Judgments — April 2017

The Tribunal held that since the genuineness of the expenses was not doubted and the assessee provided payment vouchers, the disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and vacated the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Pr.CIT failed to provide reasons for not accepting the assessee's explanations and did not demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, especially after the AO had rejected books of account and estimated income.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made an ad-hoc disallowance without sufficient inquiry. The assessee's explanation of purchasing materials from small traders in remote areas due to business exigencies, with cash payments, was plausible and not disbelieved by lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard and produce documents. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard and produce documents. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the written-off earnest money deposits were revenue in nature and incidental to the business. Following precedent, it allowed the deduction as a business expenditure under Section 37, as it was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file the audit report in the prescribed form along with the return of income under Section 139(1) is mandatory for claiming deductions under Section 10A/10B. Since the assessee failed to comply with this mandatory requirement, the deduction was not allowable.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, finding the commission payments to be genuine and related to the business. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity and dismissing the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that unutilized CENVAT credit, when accounted for as per ICAI guidelines and consistently followed, cannot be added to income. It also held that written-off security deposits made in the normal course of business are revenue losses and deductible.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were not 'freebies' but were incurred for clinical trials, scientific analysis, and product development, which are essential for business. Following a precedent from the Mumbai Bench, the Tribunal allowed the expenses as business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was revenue in nature as it was a substitute for annual lease rent and did not result in the acquisition of a capital asset. The payment was for carrying on business and facilitating export.

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order under Section 154 can only address mistakes apparent from the record. The issues raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the search and the assessment under Section 153A were not rectifiable under Section 154. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the commission was already accounted for by the assessee by showing reduced purchase amounts in the Profit and Loss account. Therefore, there was no suppressed income.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for unexplained cash book transactions. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s partial addition for interest income. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on these grounds.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no justifiable reason to interfere. The assessee failed to provide positive material to controvert the findings regarding the estimation of net profit and the treatment of interest and commission as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Cuttack Milk Union for repairs and to OMFED for cattle feed subsidy were indeed for charitable purposes, as they benefited the inhabitants of shelter homes and cattle rearers, respectively. The lower authorities were not justified in disallowing these claims.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 23,67,000 as unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, upholding the disallowance of cash purchases under Section 40A(3) and the addition to closing stock valuation. The addition for unexplained cash credit was also sustained.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the first appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the second appeal, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty as the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether it was for concealment or inaccurate particulars.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that documentation and the assessee's statement of accounts supported the claim that the amount was squared up by payments made to the assessee's share creditor and a stockbroking firm. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that documentation and the assessee's statement of accounts supported the claim that the amount was squared up by payments made to the assessee's share creditor and a stockbroking firm. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.