ITAT Cuttack Judgments — September 2017

The Tribunal held that the CIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was proper as the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue were satisfied. The assessee's failure to produce crucial books of accounts justified the rejection of books and subsequent estimation of income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in revising the AO's order under Section 263. The AO had indeed sought and received information from the employer before allowing the relief.

The Tribunal held that the joint development agreement dated September 9, 2008, entered into by the assessee with Shri Jitendra Hans, was not registered. Following the decision of the Hon'ble P&H High Court in an analogous case, the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of a registered joint development agreement, the agreement does not fall under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Consequently, Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not apply. Therefore, there was no transfer of land by the assessee during the year under consideration, and the assessee is not liable to capital gains tax. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the addition of Rs. 4,05,87,159 made under the head 'long term capital gains'. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal restored the issue of advances from customers back to the AO for re-adjudication, citing the need for fresh consideration based on earlier decisions and the inadequacy of sampling.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations and the revenue failed to produce cogent material to doubt the genuineness of the security deposits.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the Assessing Officer made estimated disallowances without sufficient enquiry or pointing out specific defects in the documents provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) had reasonably restricted the disallowances.

The Tribunal, following a precedent in a group case, restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the AO had made estimated disallowances without specific verification and that the assessee had produced supporting documents.

The Tribunal restored the issue of advances from customers back to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was based on a similar case where the AO made estimated disallowances without specific verification, and the Tribunal found the sampling inadequate.

The Tribunal restored the issue of advances from customers back to the AO for re-adjudication, citing the need for fresh consideration based on earlier decisions and the inadequacy of sampling.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the difference was due to advances received and adjusted against bills raised in the current or subsequent years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no new evidence from the revenue to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal found that the issue regarding the addition for insurance claims required further adjudication. It was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding peripheral development expenses, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this issue. For prior period expenses, the ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO for verification.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding peripheral development expenses, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this issue. For prior period expenses, the ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case and had dismissed the appeal on the ground of refusal. The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could not assume revisional powers merely because he believed further inquiries were necessary after the AO had already conducted some level of inquiry. The Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's findings were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for appeals. The circular was noted to be retrospective and applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a developer, not merely a contractor, and thus was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). They relied on previous Tribunal and High Court decisions regarding infrastructure development.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a developer, not merely a contractor, and thus was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). They relied on previous Tribunal and High Court decisions regarding infrastructure development.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the Assessing Officer were vague and did not clearly specify the grounds for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty orders.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were not specific enough, failing to clearly state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.