ITAT Cuttack Judgments — September 2018

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.