ITAT Cuttack Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal held that the employee's PF contribution deposited before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction. For electricity expenses, the Tribunal found no substantiating material and upheld the disallowance made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, enhancing monetary limits for appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding 'Over Burden Removal Expenditure' and 'Grants to Schools', following its own previous decisions and those of higher forums. The ground related to 'Service Charges' was also dismissed for lack of cogent reasons by the AO. However, the issue of 'Reclamation of land and mine closure expenses' was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal found that it was not clear if the assessee had obtained Form 27C from all buyers and submitted them within the stipulated date. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of loss on revaluation of non-moving stores and spares.

The Tribunal held that the cash transactions received from relatives for medical emergencies and from members of an Association of Persons (AOP) for establishing a school were genuine and did not constitute loans or deposits in contravention of Section 269SS. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271D was not sustainable.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of loss on revaluation of non-moving stores and spares.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, leading to a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. This decision was based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s estimation of 15% profit was arbitrary. It directed that the profit on the closing stock should be taxed at the assessee's gross profit rate of 6.45%, as reflected in its profit and loss account.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in mechanically adopting the benchmark value without proper verification and reference to the valuation officer as required by Section 50C(2). The AO failed to demonstrate that the sale consideration fell short of the fair market value.

The Tribunal held that Section 44AB is a mandatory provision requiring audit for businesses with turnover exceeding Rs. 60 lakhs. The fact that the assessee offered the entire income to tax without claiming expenditure does not provide immunity from the penalty. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 44AB is a mandatory provision requiring audit for businesses with turnover exceeding Rs. 60 lakhs. The fact that the assessee offered the entire income without claiming expenditure does not provide a safeguard against the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in mechanically adopting the benchmark value without proper verification and reference to the valuation officer as required by Section 50C(2). The AO failed to demonstrate that the sale consideration fell short of the fair market value.

The Tribunal held that the matter required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to furnish a certificate in Form 26A to support the claim that the recipient had offered the rent amount to tax.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in allowing a deduction for depreciation and estimating interest income at 10%. It also confirmed the deletion of the addition related to unsecured loans, agreeing that it was a transfer from a deceased partner's capital account.

The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow MAT credit including surcharge and education cess, following High Court and ITAT decisions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of accrued interest on NPA. The decision was based on the principle that for income recognition, RBI guidelines prevail over Section 145 of the Income Tax Act for cooperative banks.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The assessee had provided documentary evidence for the capital introduction, and the AO failed to controvert this evidence.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from surplus funds not immediately required for lending to members is attributable to the assessee's business and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that interest earned from surplus funds not immediately required for lending to members is attributable to the business of the assessee and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no specific error in the deletion of additions. The Tribunal noted that the buyers' lack of awareness of agents or the agents' inability to recall buyers does not automatically invalidate commission payments, especially when transactions are genuine and payments are made through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not sufficiently verify the genuineness of the assessee's objects and activities. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the CIT(E).