Loading ITAT cases…
208 tribunal orders from the Cuttack bench in 2020.
Showing 40 of 208 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the profit rate for wholesale business cannot be applied to retail business. However, it found the 8% estimation excessive and reduced it to 4% of the gross turnover, considering retail profit to be double that of wholesale.
The Tribunal held that the profit rate for wholesale business cannot be applied to retail business. However, it found the 8% estimation excessive and reduced it to 4% of the gross turnover, considering retail profit to be double that of wholesale.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's settlement application under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. It was held that the appeal should be dismissed at this stage, with the option to revive if the settlement is rejected for technical reasons.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's settlement application under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed with the liberty to seek revival if the settlement is rejected for technical reasons.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee had sufficient cash balance and receipts to explain the bank deposits and demand drafts, leading to the deletion of these additions. However, the disallowances for expenses were upheld due to lack of supporting evidence.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for their conduct.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions and case laws, decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to examine the nature of the income and its utilization for revenue or capital expenditure.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions and case laws, decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to examine the nature of the income and its utilization for revenue or capital expenditure.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not decided the legal issue regarding the reopening of assessment, which was raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide both the legal and merit issues de novo.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The tribunal decided to modify its previous order to reflect the correct name of the Departmental Representative (DR). The original order's disposal of the appeal remains unchanged in substance.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 14A(2) and Rule 8D(1)(a). The AO also incorrectly calculated the disallowance based on average total investment instead of average of investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal found that the investments were recorded in the assessee's bank accounts and were supported by withdrawals from her and her husband's accounts. Considering the factual aspects and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalties under Sections 271A and 271B, upholding the lower authorities' decisions. However, it allowed the appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), finding that the assessee had made some compliance.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) regarding the proviso is not applicable retrospectively for the assessment year in question, and the disallowance on commission payments was upheld. However, issues related to EPF and gratuity payments were remanded for further verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's share application money was pending allotment for a long time and raised several questions regarding its treatment and the utilization of funds. Due to unanswered questions and the need for further examination, the matter was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the AO to explain the source of cash deposits. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination and adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalties under Sections 271A and 271B, upholding the lower authorities' decisions. However, it allowed the appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), finding that the assessee had made some compliance.
The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalties under Sections 271A and 271B, upholding the lower authorities' decisions. However, it allowed the appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), finding that the assessee had made some compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was not maintainable as the assessee had voluntarily agreed to the 56% gross profit rate. The CIT(A) granting relief was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an individual with a turnover below the threshold for mandatory audit under Section 44AB in the preceding financial year, was not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194H. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the principle of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' orders, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT cannot exercise revisionary powers under Section 263 if the issue is already a subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of alleged advance and interest was unjust. Regarding gold jewellery, it was found that a significant portion belonged to other family members, and the assessee was only required to explain a smaller portion.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of alleged advance and interest was unjust. Regarding gold jewellery, it was found that a significant portion belonged to other family members, and the assessee was only required to explain a smaller portion.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of alleged advance and interest was unjust. Regarding gold jewellery, it was found that a significant portion belonged to other family members, and the assessee was only required to explain a smaller portion.