ITAT Cuttack Judgments — February 2019

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard, considering the medical reasons for non-appearance.

The Tribunal held that since the EPF and ESIC contributions were deposited by the assessee prior to the filing of the return of income, the disallowance was not justified. The decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Beverage Corporation Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in treating agricultural income as business income. It noted that a field inquiry report for a subsequent year confirmed coffee plantations and black pepper cultivation, and the AO failed to provide evidence of trading activities.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in treating agricultural income as business income. It noted that a field inquiry report for a subsequent year confirmed coffee plantations and black pepper cultivation, and the AO failed to provide evidence of trading activities.

The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, finding that the lower authorities had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee to submit crucial documents. The issue of the unsecured loan was restored to the AO for fresh examination and verification.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not complied with notices from the AO. However, in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the AO.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not provide evidence of issuing notices for the hearing dates and their service on the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in deciding the appeal based on the assessee's non-appearance.

The Tribunal upheld the estimation of business profit, finding it to be a balanced view considering the commission paid to retailers and lack of expenditure evidence. However, the penalty for not maintaining books of account was set aside due to a bonafide belief and reasonable cause.

The Tribunal upheld the estimation of business profit, finding it to be a balanced view considering the commission paid to retailers and lack of expenditure evidence. However, the penalty for not maintaining books of account was set aside due to a bonafide belief and reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that even without Section 12A registration, the assessee should be assessed on net income based on commercial principles. Revenue expenditures incurred for charitable activities should be allowed out of gross receipts.

The Tribunal held that the Rajasthan High Court's decision, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, mandates allowing such claims if paid before the due date of filing the return. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is triggered only when there is actual exempt income earned, not for notional or anticipated income. Since the assessee earned no exempt income (like dividend) and the investments were out of non-interest bearing funds, the disallowance under Section 14A was not applicable.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the Revenue's counsel conceding that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit and seeking withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that since the EPF contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it should not be disallowed. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court decision in Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd.