ITAT Cuttack Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file, directing that a speaking and reasoned order be passed after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This was done in the interest of justice and fair-play.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and in the interest of justice, the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that transactions between a firm and its partners are not covered under Section 269SS, as they are not distinct legal entities. Security deposits received for business purposes also do not attract the provisions of Section 269SS.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made an inadequate inquiry regarding the estimation of net profit, thus justifying the CIT's invocation of Section 263. However, the Tribunal modified the enhancement made by the CIT, directing the AO to estimate net profit at 6% of total gross receipts, following High Court precedent.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal followed the CBDT circular which also applies to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limits was held to be applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular enhancing the monetary limits was held to be applicable to pending appeals as well.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The revised monetary limits introduced by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 are applicable to pending appeals as well.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and a coordinate bench's decision.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and a coordinate bench's decision, stating that the enhanced monetary limits are applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular's enhanced monetary limits were applicable to pending appeals as well.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular's enhanced monetary limits are applicable to pending appeals as well.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular's enhanced monetary limits were applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The amended CBDT circular, enhancing the monetary limits, was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular was held to be applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal also clarified that the enhanced monetary limits under CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 are applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The revised monetary limits under CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 are applicable to pending appeals as well.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and a coordinate bench decision which held that the enhanced monetary limits are applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal followed the CBDT Circular and a coordinate bench's decision, dismissing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. The CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for appeals is applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal also noted that the CBDT circular applies to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot travel beyond the relevant assessment year for making additions, and opening capital is a brought forward amount. The Tribunal also noted that the preceding year's capital account details were not adequately considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the payments to storage agents were for multifarious services and fell under Section 194C. Since the assessee had deducted TDS under Section 194C and deposited it, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the reassignment of the case to the ACIT(OSD) by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was not maintainable. Consequently, the assessment order and the first appellate order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to allege that the assessee had not disclosed material facts fully and truly. The reassessment order was therefore quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It held that since TDS was deducted and deposited on time, and there was no revenue loss to the department, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It held that since TDS was deducted and deposited on time, and there was no revenue loss to the department, the penalty was not leviable.

The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the demand raised under Section 206C(6) and interest under Section 206C(7). The tribunal likely found that the assessee's explanation regarding the declaration forms, despite initial defects, warranted a different treatment than the AO's outright rejection.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion, as the AO had already been provided with the relevant details regarding the payments during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were considered invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It held that since TDS was deducted and deposited on time, and there was no revenue loss to the department, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not accept the assessee's contention regarding the subdivision of land into plots because the supporting documents were neither notarized nor registered. The case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to levy fees under Section 234E as the default occurred after the effective date of 01.06.2015. Therefore, the confirmation of late fees by the CIT(A) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 powers as the AO had not made proper enquiry on the interest income. The Tribunal noted that a subsequent ITAT order in favour of the assessee was not available when the Pr. CIT passed the revisional order.

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) had afforded opportunities, the assessee failed to comply. To ensure substantial justice, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.