ITAT Cuttack Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts due to non-compliance by the assessee. However, it found the 6% profit estimation to be on the higher side and directed the AO to restrict the addition to 4% of the turnover.

The Tribunal restored the issue of periphery development expenses to the AO for fresh examination, citing a lack of proper findings in the assessment order and the need to verify the genuineness of the claim. For prior period expenses, the Tribunal followed its previous decision and restored the matter to the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to valuation of closing stock and other expenses, relying on previous judicial precedents.

The Tribunal restored the issue of periphery development expenses to the AO for fresh examination, citing a lack of proper findings in the assessment order and the need to verify the genuineness of the claim. For prior period expenses, the Tribunal followed its previous decision and restored the matter to the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to valuation of closing stock and other expenses, relying on previous judicial precedents.

The Tribunal restored the issue of periphery development expenses to the AO for fresh examination, citing a lack of proper findings in the assessment order and the need to verify the genuineness of the claim. For prior period expenses, the Tribunal followed its previous decision and restored the matter to the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to valuation of closing stock and other expenses, relying on previous judicial precedents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's NRI status and the claim for exemption of foreign-sourced income required further verification. The matter was restored to the AO for re-examination of the assessee's stay in India and NRI status.

The Tribunal restored the issue of unsecured creditors to the AO for verification. It dismissed the ground regarding material purchase disallowance and restricted the contract expense disallowance to 1%. The issue of the Rs. 4 lakh payment was remitted to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal restored the issue of periphery development expenses to the AO for fresh examination, citing a lack of proper findings in the assessment order and the need to verify the genuineness of the claim. For prior period expenses, the Tribunal followed its previous decision and restored the matter to the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to valuation of closing stock and other expenses, relying on previous judicial precedents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to furnish sufficient details and evidence to substantiate its claims before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal provided one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide findings on the assessee's submissions and evidence regarding the property's benchmark value. The matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest income from fixed deposits as income from other sources, not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) or set-off against business loss, relying on a coordinate bench decision. However, grounds related to interest from another cooperative society and revised return were remitted.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of substantial justice, but with a cost imposed on the assessee for their conduct.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support the claim of higher depreciation on the tanker used for hire purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition. It was noted that the three co-owners had already declared and paid the capital gains tax on the entire sale consideration, and the department had not lost any revenue.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the remand report, finding that the cash deposits originated from the firm's sales and thus could not be treated as the assessee's income. The Tribunal confirmed this deletion.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of donation and bus branding receivable due to lack of substantiation. However, it restricted the ad-hoc addition for vehicle maintenance expenses from 10% to 5% of the claimed expenses, considering that the expenses were incurred for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was made under Section 145(3) and not Section 144, as the assessee had filed its return and complied with notices. Therefore, Section 184(5) was not applicable, and deductions for salary and interest to partners should be allowed from the estimated income.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified. The evidence presented by the assessee, including the failure of shareholders to appear and the finding that some companies were shell entities, did not establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of cash withdrawals to explain the subsequent deposits. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no cogent material to controvert these findings.

The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was not justified. The amounts should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for wasting the time of the authorities.

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

The Tribunal decided to remit the disputed issue of non-deduction of TDS on interest payments to NBFCs back to the CIT(A) for verification, considering the newly submitted CA certificate. Other grounds of appeal were also remitted.

The tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to both payable and paid amounts. However, it also found that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective and directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the NBFCs had disclosed the interest income and paid tax.

The Tribunal, considering the transactions between the assessee and its parent company, found that regular account transactions needed verification. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for examination and verification.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the additional evidence and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the possession of land was delivered to the builder on the date of agreement and GPA, constituting a transfer of capital asset. Therefore, capital gains arose in the relevant financial year.

The Tribunal held that the possession of land was delivered to the builder on the date of agreement and GPA, constituting a transfer of capital asset. Therefore, capital gains arose in the relevant financial year.