ITAT Cuttack Judgments — May 2019

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee incurred expenses to manage the petrol pump, even though books of account were not maintained. To render substantial justice, the addition was restricted to 50% of the computed commission.

The Tribunal confirmed the penalty for concealment of income, finding that the assessee failed to provide details despite opportunities. However, it allowed the appeal against the penalty for non-maintenance of books, accepting the partner dispute as a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal confirmed the penalties levied under Sections 271(1)(c), 271A, and 271F of the Income Tax Act. It held that the assessee's failure to furnish returns and maintain books of account, despite opportunities, constituted concealment of income and a conscious disregard of statutory obligations.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had no occasion to consider the relevant CBDT circulars as they were not furnished. To render substantial justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.

The Tribunal confirmed the penalties levied under Sections 271(1)(c), 271A, and 271F of the Income Tax Act. It held that the assessee's failure to furnish returns and maintain books of account, despite opportunities, constituted concealment of income and a conscious disregard of statutory obligations.

The Tribunal held that the payments for publicity expenses, which included the cost of materials, did not fall under the definition of 'work contract' as per Section 194C. Therefore, TDS was not required, and the disallowance was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that it would be unjust to deny crucial evidence simply because it was not produced before the Assessing Officer, especially in an ex-parte assessment. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to accept the correct cash book, verify it, and decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to accept the correct cash book, verify it, and decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if the contractee settled a bill at a lesser amount than raised and deducted TDS accordingly, the differential amount cannot be treated as income. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the TDS certificate and payment.

The Tribunal observed that the turnover limit for Section 44AD was increased and the profit estimation percentage reduced. Considering the assessee's business in a remote area with low profit margins, the Tribunal reduced the net profit estimation from 8% to 6%.

The Tribunal held that while the payments were in violation of Section 40A(3), the genuineness of the transactions and the identity of the payees were not disputed. Considering business exigencies, such as marriage season and urgent cash needs, the disallowance was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for transportation charges was justified, as the payments were made to local transporters for necessary business purposes. The disallowance was based on hyper-technical grounds without considering the practicalities of the business.

The Tribunal held that Section 184(5) disallowance is applicable when assessment is framed under Section 144 due to the assessee's failure to comply with notices. Since the assessee had complete non-compliance with a notice dated 5.2.2015, the AO was justified in invoking Section 144 and disallowing partner payments.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, citing the principle of natural justice. A cost of Rs. 3,000 was imposed on the assessee for their conduct.