ITAT Cuttack Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) did not consider the assessee's request for adjournment on medical grounds and denied the approval without adequate opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the provision for dam maintenance, following its own prior ruling. However, for prior period expenses and interest on advance to contractors, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E of the Act was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A of the Act was amended to allow such computation only from that date. For periods after June 1, 2015, the levy is valid.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A of the Act was amended to allow such computation only from that date. Therefore, fees levied for periods before this date were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A of the Act was amended to allow for such computation only from that date. Therefore, fees levied for periods before this date were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E of the Act was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering such levy was prospective. Fees levied after this date were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering such levy was prospective. Fees levied after this date were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering such levy was prospective. Fees levied after this date were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, was not maintainable as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective. Therefore, the late fees levied for the period before this date were to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A of the Act was amended to allow for such computation only from that date. Therefore, fees levied for periods before this date were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A of the Act was amended to allow for such computation only from that date. Therefore, fees levied for periods before this date were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A of the Act was amended to allow for such computation only from that date. Therefore, fees levied for periods before this date were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, was not maintainable as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective. Therefore, the late fees levied for the period before this date were to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, was not maintainable as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective. Therefore, the late fees levied for the period before this date were to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, was not maintainable as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective. Therefore, the late fees levied for the period before this date were to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering such levy was prospective. Fees levied after this date were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering such levy was prospective. Fees levied after this date were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering such levy was prospective. Fees levied after this date were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering such levy was prospective. Fees levied after this date were upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the provision for dam maintenance, following its own prior ruling. However, for prior period expenses and interest on advance to contractors, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering such levy was prospective. Fees levied after this date were upheld.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case with proper evidence before the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to consider these submissions and pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case with proper evidence before the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to consider these submissions and pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation as application of income if the cost of the asset was not claimed in the year of acquisition or subsequent years. Consequently, the application of income crossed the 85% threshold, entitling the assessee to exemption.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the accounting treatment of the write-off of the advance to the subsidiary. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all submissions and documents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions for registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80G. The assessee did not maintain separate books of account for its activities.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions for registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80G. The assessee did not maintain separate books of account for its activities.

The Tribunal held that a fixed medical allowance paid to employees is taxable as salary income, as it is not linked to actual expenditure incurred. Since no bills were submitted to substantiate medical expenses, the exemption under Section 17(2) for reimbursement of actual expenditure was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that a fixed medical allowance paid to employees is taxable as salary income, as it is not linked to actual expenditure incurred. Since no bills were submitted to substantiate medical expenses, the exemption under Section 17(2) for reimbursement of actual expenditure was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that a fixed medical allowance paid to employees is taxable as salary income, as it is not linked to actual expenditure incurred. Since no bills were submitted to substantiate medical expenses, the exemption under Section 17(2) for reimbursement of actual expenditure was not applicable.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the accounting treatment of the write-off of the advance to the subsidiary. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all submissions and documents.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the document was an 'Agreement to Sale' and not a 'Sale Deed'. The AO had wrongly assumed the entire consideration was paid, whereas only a partial amount was received by the builder as per the agreement.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was correct in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) as the assessee had not demonstrated fulfillment of the conditions laid down in Rule 11AA, particularly regarding the verification of its activities' genuineness.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee passed a resolution and filed an affidavit regarding the amendment, the matter should be decided by the CIT(E) after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing. The rejection of the application was set aside.

The Tribunal held that a fixed medical allowance paid to employees is taxable as salary income, as it is not linked to actual expenditure incurred. Since no bills were submitted to substantiate medical expenses, the exemption under Section 17(2) for reimbursement of actual expenditure was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that a fixed medical allowance paid to employees is taxable as salary income, as it is not linked to actual expenditure incurred. Since no bills were submitted to substantiate medical expenses, the exemption under Section 17(2) for reimbursement of actual expenditure was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that a fixed medical allowance paid to employees is taxable as salary income, as it is not linked to actual expenditure incurred. Since no bills were submitted to substantiate medical expenses, the exemption under Section 17(2) for reimbursement of actual expenditure was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that since the relevant provision (Section 92BA(i)) under which the penalty was levied was omitted from the statute by the Finance Act, 2017, the penalty proceedings were invalid. The omission of the section meant it was deemed to have never existed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied. Following previous judicial precedents, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal, following CBDT circulars and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold are not maintainable. The Revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is to examine and verify the certificates produced by the assessee in support of its claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to produce the certificates. The AO was directed to examine and verify these certificates to support the claim for deduction.