ITAT Cuttack Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were bad in law as they were based on a change of opinion without any fresh material. The assessee's failure to file a return in response to the Section 148 notice did not preclude it from raising objections regarding the validity of the reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, empowering the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees levied for delays prior to this date were without authority of law.

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

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

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, following its own previous decision in the assessee's case and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal found that the rental income was covered by the favorable decisions cited.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in dismissing the assessee's evidence, including customer affidavits and stock registers, without proper verification. It was not practically possible to submit all affidavits during the survey, and the revenue authorities should not dismiss evidence without examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default if the deductee has paid the tax directly. For rent payments, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification of whether the recipient had shown the rent as income and paid tax on it.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had submitted some documents, a proper reconciliation statement for the disputed amount was not produced. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default if the deductee has paid the tax directly. For rent payments, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification of whether the recipient had shown the rent as income and paid tax on it.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default if the deductee has paid the tax directly. For rent payments, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification of whether the recipient had shown the rent as income and paid tax on it.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, having only decided one ground. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, having only decided one ground. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, having only decided one ground. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had only adjudicated one ground of appeal and failed to address the other grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the cash deposits were incorporated in the employer's accounts or taxed in the employer's hands. However, for one assessment year, the addition was restricted to 8% of the total bank deposits, treating it as turnover.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to reconsider the application for registration, taking into account the amendment to the trust deed and directing the assessee to furnish details regarding its charitable activities.

The Tribunal noted that it was unclear if the disputed amounts were debited to the profit and loss account. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification and fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity of being heard and thus could not furnish necessary evidence. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to verify the documents after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to reconsider the application for registration, taking into account the amendment to the trust deed and directing the assessee to furnish details regarding its charitable activities.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not properly examined the genuineness of advances received from customers. Therefore, the Pr. CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order as prejudicial to the revenue, and the AO was directed to reframe the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the cash deposits were incorporated in the employer's accounts or taxed in the employer's hands. However, for one assessment year, the addition was restricted to 8% of the total bank deposits, treating it as turnover.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order. The Assessing Officer's view was a possible one, and the Pr.CIT's action amounted to a change of opinion, which is not permitted under Section 263 unless the AO's order is patently unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The Revenue was granted liberty to point out any exceptions or errors.

The Tribunal acknowledged the low-profit nature of the business and, considering prior years' profit margins, reduced the estimated net profit from 3% to 2% of gross receipts.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide proper opportunity to the assessee and that the consideration could not be treated as income of a single person when the property belonged to joint holders. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide adequate opportunity for hearing to the assessee before passing the assessment order. Therefore, the assessment order and the appellate order were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and that the dismissal was ex-parte. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, finding that the assessee's explanation for making the provision without affecting the profit and loss account was not satisfactory. The AO's failure to examine this issue was considered an error.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had not properly considered the evidence submitted by the assessee, including audit reports and financial statements. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had granted exemption under Section 11(1)(a) for a previous assessment year.

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 non-maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it was issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, agreeing that the AO's estimation of suppressed production based solely on higher electricity consumption and manufacturing costs was speculative and lacked sufficient evidence. The Tribunal noted that similar additions were deleted in the preceding assessment year.