ITAT Cuttack Judgments — July 2017

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions regarding sources of income needed further verification. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh examination with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agent's activities, including market intelligence and order execution, indicated a connection to India. The Tribunal relied on the principle that the source of income is in India if the export activity is fulfilled there.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders passed without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) are bad in law. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment orders.

The Tribunal found that the disputed matters needed re-examination by the AO as there were no clear findings on estimation of income, cash credits, or unexplained investments. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was remitted to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the disputed matters needed re-examination by the AO as there were no clear findings on estimation of income, cash credits, or unexplained investments. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was remitted to the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), confirming that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11. This was based on the retrospective grant of registration under Section 12AA and the fact that similar benefits were allowed in a subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO before deciding the issue, as the AO was deprived of verifying the vital facts. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had exhaustively considered the expenditures, substantiated his reasoning with acceptable logic considering the nature of the business, and that the AO's additions were primarily due to a lack of evidence and explanation.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's direction to the AO to re-examine the issue of TDS non-deduction was in accordance with the law. The assessee was given an opportunity to substantiate its claim regarding Section 40(a)(ia).

The Tribunal considered the Revenue's petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The judgment indicates that the appeal was indeed delayed.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not specify which bills pertained to the sister concern and made an estimated disallowance. Since no material was presented to justify a higher disallowance or to show the CIT(A)'s figure was excessive, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.