ITAT Cuttack Judgments — February 2018

The Tribunal found the 15% estimation to be on the higher side and decided that estimating the income at 5% of the revenue would meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation disallowance. However, it remanded the issues of share application money and sundry creditors back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the grounds relating to the validity of the assessment order. The assessee was to be given a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions by following previous ITAT orders and in the absence of contrary material from the Revenue. The cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in proper verification of facts. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that statements taken during a survey under Section 133A have no evidentiary value without oath. Since the assessee's revised income was not confirmed by the joint developer, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This lack of clarity amounts to a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) is applicable only if a deduction or allowance in respect of the amount was allowed in an earlier assessment year. Since the revenue could not establish this, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the re-deposit of cash withdrawals could not be entirely ruled out, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove they had adequate funds from withdrawals to cover the deposits after personal expenses. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 50% of the additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 13(1)(b) is not applicable to trusts established before the commencement of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the assessee was incorporated in 1945, it predates the Act, making the denial of exemption unjustified.

The Tribunal held that while the re-deposit of cash withdrawals could not be completely ruled out, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. Therefore, the additions made by the CIT(A) were upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat 50% of the cash deposits as unexplained income. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the deposits were from legitimate sources or from their own cash withdrawals after meeting personal expenses.

The Tribunal held that while the re-deposit of cash withdrawals could not be entirely ruled out, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove they had adequate funds from withdrawals to cover the deposits after personal expenses. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 50% of the additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that while the re-deposit of cash withdrawals could not be entirely ruled out, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove they had adequate funds from withdrawals to cover the deposits after personal expenses. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 50% of the additions was upheld.