ITAT Cuttack Judgments — November 2017

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 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 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 once the books of accounts are rejected in the original assessment, they cannot be relied upon for making an addition under Section 69 in a reopened assessment. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was set aside.

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 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 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.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest and audit fees was justified as per the Supreme Court's decision in Palam Gas Service. However, the disallowance of employee's PF contribution paid before the return filing due date was vacated.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has since been granted registration under Section 12AA. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of the granted registration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had exhaustively dealt with the disputed issue and granted relief to the assessee. The Tribunal followed the judicial precedent in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, stating that the pendency of the matter before the High Court is not a reason to take a different view.

The Tribunal held that the decisions of the Tribunal are binding on all authorities within the state, and the pendency of an appeal before the High Court does not justify a different view. Therefore, the Tribunal followed judicial precedent.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has since been granted registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue of hiring charges to the AO for fresh adjudication due to lack of clarity on the nature of the agreement. Regarding wages, the CIT(A) had sustained 50% of the disallowance, and the Tribunal found the issue required further verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the Commissioner's order. The matter was restored to the Commissioner's file for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to appear within 30 days.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) overlooked written submissions. To ensure substantial justice, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal modified the disallowance on tyre expenses to 5% and on repair and maintenance expenses to 3%, acknowledging that while vouchers were not perfectly maintained, the expenses were not entirely unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It relied on High Court judgments that treated the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) as retrospective, allowing deduction if TDS is paid before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee was eligible for higher depreciation as its Tippers were used in the business of transportation of goods on hire, citing High Court precedents.