ITAT Cuttack Judgments — August 2020

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 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 upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide complete addresses and PAN numbers for loan creditors, and the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions remained unsubstantiated.

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of commission and peripheral development charges, finding them to be genuine business expenses. However, it confirmed the disallowance of mosquito nets and donation as not meeting the test of commercial expediency.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of commission and peripheral development charges, finding them to be genuine business expenses. However, it confirmed the disallowance of mosquito nets and donation as not meeting the test of commercial expediency.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable to charitable trusts whose income is computed under Sections 11 and 12, as Section 40 pertains to computation of profits and gains from business or profession. The disallowance was therefore a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. Legal grounds challenging the revisionary order were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. Legal grounds challenging the revisionary order were dismissed.