ITAT Cuttack Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an AO without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this notice was quashed.

The Tribunal held that while it's difficult to segregate services rendered by an individual in multiple capacities, the fact that HUF funds were invested in the partnership firm supports the allowability of commission paid to the HUFs. The commission was considered a mode of return for financial support.

The Tribunal restored the issue of peripheral development expenses to the AO for re-examination, allowing the assessee's ground for statistical purposes. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition on stock valuation and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s order on those points.

The Tribunal restored the issue of peripheral development expenses to the AO for re-examination, allowing the assessee's ground for statistical purposes. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition on stock valuation and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s order on those points.

The Tribunal restored the issue of peripheral development expenses to the AO for re-examination. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition on stock valuation and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on depreciation. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeals for specific assessment years.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted a Profit and Loss account showing commission received and expenses, which had not been examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification of the expenses.

The Tribunal restored the issue of peripheral development expenses to the AO for re-examination, allowing the assessee's ground for statistical purposes. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition on stock valuation and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s order on those points.

The Tribunal restored the issue of peripheral development expenses to the AO for re-examination, allowing the assessee's ground for statistical purposes. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition on stock valuation and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s order on those points.

The Tribunal held that the AIR information did not constitute new tangible material for reopening the assessment, as it was already on record during the initial assessment. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the levy of late fees under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015, and was prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was without authority of law.

The Tribunal held that proceedings initiated against a dead person are a nullity. Since the revisional order was passed in the name of the deceased assessee, it was not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the levy of late fees under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015, and was prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was without authority of law.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the levy of late fees under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015, and was prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was without authority of law.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the levy of late fees under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015, and was prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was without authority of law.

The Tribunal held that the AO was empowered to issue notices under Section 153A and levy penalties under Section 271F for non-compliance. It also found that the assessees had not established any reasonable cause for their failure to file the returns, thus rejecting their claims for immunity.

The Tribunal held that the AO was empowered to issue notices under Section 153A and levy penalties under Section 271F for non-compliance. It also found that the assessees had not established any reasonable cause for their failure to file the returns, thus rejecting their claims for immunity.

The Tribunal held that the AO was empowered to issue notices under Section 153A and levy penalties under Section 271F for non-compliance. It also found that the assessees had not established any reasonable cause for their failure to file the returns, thus rejecting their claims for immunity.

The Tribunal held that the AO was empowered to issue notices under Section 153A and levy penalties under Section 271F for non-compliance. It also found that the assessees had not established any reasonable cause for their failure to file the returns, thus rejecting their claims for immunity.

The Tribunal held that the AO was empowered to issue notices under Section 153A and levy penalties under Section 271F for non-compliance. It also found that the assessees had not established any reasonable cause for their failure to file the returns, thus rejecting their claims for immunity.

The Tribunal held that the AO was empowered to issue notices under Section 153A and levy penalties under Section 271F for non-compliance. It also found that the assessees had not established any reasonable cause for their failure to file the returns, thus rejecting their claims for immunity.

The Tribunal held that the AO was empowered to issue notices under Section 153A and levy penalties under Section 271F for non-compliance. It also found that the assessees had not established any reasonable cause for their failure to file the returns, thus rejecting their claims for immunity.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not correctly considered the assessee's reconciliation statement, which included acknowledged errors by the department and ignored items. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect. Regarding the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal found that the source of the impugned FDs amounting to Rs. 54,10,000/- was adequately explained by the assessee through opening cash balance and deposits by his wife.

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

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective. Therefore, the fee imposed for late filing of the TDS return for Quarter-IV of FY 2013-2014 was to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO was empowered to issue notices under Section 153A and levy penalties under Section 271F for non-compliance. It also found that the assessees had not established any reasonable cause for their failure to file the returns, thus rejecting their claims for immunity.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the foreign investor, which is a crucial ingredient under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the license fee paid by the assessee was not exclusively levied on it or appropriated by the State Government, thus Section 40(a)(iib) was not applicable. However, the disallowance of prior period expenses was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that non-service of notices to some creditors or their failure to appear before the AO cannot be the sole basis for treating loans as non-genuine. However, for other lenders, the AO was directed to verify cash availability from legitimate sources.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine the contributions made with reference to their actual deposit dates and grant relief if they qualify under the prevailing provisions of the Act.