Loading ITAT cases…
194 tribunal orders from the Cuttack bench in 2018.
Showing 40 of 194 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) failed to consider the amended trust deed which addressed the deficiencies. The amended deed incorporated clauses for activities within India, beneficiary, dissolution, and irrevocability.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte. To render substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is not sustainable if no incriminating material was found during the search operation concerning the disputed expenditure. The assessment order under Section 153A for a non-abated year can only be based on such incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be treated as a firm, allowing deductions for partner salary and interest. It also deleted the addition for unexplained investment after the AO's report clarified the transactions. Furthermore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted as there were no cash payments by the firm to partners violating the section.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable and was quashed.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 263 are not warranted if no incriminating material was found during the search related to the issue being considered for revision. The assessment under Section 153C cannot be deemed erroneous or prejudicial to revenue in such cases.
The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should decide appeals on merits even if the assessee fails to appear. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation by following a Supreme Court judgment stating that normal depreciation is a legitimate deduction for charitable trusts. However, the additions for general fund, advances, and liabilities were confirmed as the assessee failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should decide appeals on merits even if the assessee fails to appear. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application without granting a proper opportunity for hearing and that the assessee claimed its accounts were audited and supported charitable activities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions and the AO's findings. The Revenue failed to present new material to controvert the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agricultural income was accepted based on a remand report. The Tribunal also agreed that the investment in share application money was adequately explained by the agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to properly re-examine the genuineness of the cash gifts. The Pr. Commissioner was justified in invoking Section 263 to set aside the assessment order and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of crucial documents like the AO's questionnaire and the assessee's replies, it was unable to fully adjudicate the matter. Therefore, it found no reason to interfere with the Pr. CIT's order setting aside the AO's assessment for fresh inquiry.
The Tribunal held that once the AO rejected the assessee's books of account and estimated income, no further additions could be made under Section 68 based on the same books. Therefore, the PCIT was not justified in setting aside the AO's order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had granted several opportunities, but the assessee did not appear. However, in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO had selectively picked cash deposits and failed to provide material to disprove the assessee's claim that the deposits were part of disclosed contract receipts. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that trustees had a substantial interest in the company as required by section 13(3). It also found that the Revenue did not prove the remuneration paid to trustees was excessive or unreasonable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that trustees had a substantial interest in the company as required by section 13(3). It also found that the Revenue did not prove the remuneration paid to trustees was excessive or unreasonable.
The Tribunal held that the microfinance activity was carried out with the object of providing relief to the poor. It found no error in the CIT(A)'s order which considered the activity charitable, relying on various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently followed a recognized method of stock valuation, which could not be disturbed by the revenue authorities without pointing out defects. The Assessing Officer had made due enquiries, and the Principal CIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient savings from earlier years to explain the cash deposit of Rs. 4,29,000/-. It also found that the explanation for the Rs. 2,60,000/- received back as loan repayment was plausible and not adequately controverted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not conducted any agricultural operations and the transactions were collusive. The income was therefore to be treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's order, finding that the Pr.CIT had considered judicial decisions and passed a reasoned order. The Tribunal was not inclined to interfere with the Pr.CIT's decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not conducted any agricultural operations and the transactions were collusive. The income was therefore to be treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition for unexplained bank deposits due to lack of reconciliation. For the wages issue, the Tribunal found that the payment was likely reimbursement and set aside the order for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence and lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that if machines are provided by a contractor with an operator, and the contractor is responsible for diesel, repairs, and maintenance, the contract is for work (Section 194-C) and not for rent (Section 194-I). Therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue of reopening of assessment back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Other grounds related to the merits of the addition were also restored.
The Tribunal held that the issue of LTIP provision disallowance needed re-examination by the AO due to new documents filed by the assessee. The issue of proportionate interest disallowance was also remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the non-communication of reasons for reassessment, which violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the issue of LTIP provision disallowance needed re-examination by the AO due to new documents filed by the assessee. The issue of proportionate interest disallowance was also remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, agreeing that the AO had made incorrect presumptions regarding expenses and sales figures.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on funds inextricably linked to the setting up of a business, particularly when derived from share capital and not surplus from running operations, is a capital receipt. Such income should be capitalized and set off against pre-operative expenses, not taxed as income from other sources.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 2,35,127/- for safety expenses, finding that the assessee failed to prove these were not cash payments. For the professional fees, the issue was remanded to the AO to verify if the recipients offered the income for taxation.
The Tribunal held that if machines are provided with an operator and the contractor is responsible for diesel, repairs, and maintenance, it constitutes a contract for work (Section 194-C) and not a hire contract (Section 194-I). Therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default.
The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions contradictory and that the issue of allotment against stocks was raised for the first time. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for examination.