Loading ITAT cases…
108 tribunal orders from the Cuttack bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 108 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that once an assessee has registration under Section 12A/12AA and it has not been revoked, the application for approval under Section 80G cannot be rejected on the grounds that the activities are commercial or that the assessee is acting as a contractor. This is based on established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the Assessing Officer had already considered the discrepancy in turnover during the original assessment. It also ruled that only the profit embedded in the understated gross receipts should be taxed, not the entire amount.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG from the sale of equity shares. The documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions, and the department failed to provide cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind and taken a plausible view by estimating profit on undisclosed receipts. The assessment order was considered neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue of disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order to that extent was confirmed, and the AO was directed to calculate the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue of disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order to that extent was confirmed, and the AO was directed to calculate the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order under Section 119(2)(b) is not maintainable before it. However, exercising powers under Section 254(1), the Tribunal directed the Principal CIT to reconsider the assessee's representation, keeping in view previous High Court and ITAT orders on identical issues.
The Tribunal held that an admission made during a survey under Section 133A is not conclusive evidence and cannot be the sole basis for an addition without corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue of disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order to that extent was confirmed, and the AO was directed to calculate the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that an admission made during a survey under Section 133A is not conclusive evidence and can be retracted if the assessee provides a valid explanation. Since the AO did not bring on record any corroborative evidence to support the addition, it was deleted.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings under Section 153A for unabated years are valid only if based on incriminating material unearthed during a search. Since no such material was found, the assessments were deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263. The issues raised by the Pr. CIT had either been settled in favour of the assessee by previous ITAT orders or were properly accounted for and inextricably linked to the assessee's business activities, thus not making the assessment order erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making additions for undisclosed production based on Form H-1, as the figures were provisional and the CIT(A) had deleted the addition. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D, thus the disallowance was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings under Section 153A for unabated years are valid only if based on incriminating material unearthed during a search. Since no such material was found, the assessments were deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making additions for undisclosed production based on Form H-1, as the figures were provisional and the CIT(A) had deleted the addition. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D, thus the disallowance was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the Pr. CIT failed to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and also noted that a prior appeal by the assessee had already been decided by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 of the Act were defective as they did not refer to the specific provisions of Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 of the Act were defective as they did not refer to the specific provisions of Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 of the Act were defective as they did not refer to the specific provisions of Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 of the Act were defective as they did not refer to the specific provisions of Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not want to pursue the appeal further and the Revenue did not oppose this request. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to refile if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement was declined later.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 of the Act were defective as they did not refer to the specific provisions of Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and made inquiries regarding the investment. The revisionary power under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the CIT has a different opinion or believes the inquiry could have been more extensive.
The Tribunal held that Section 206C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to a person engaged solely in the trading of scrap, as the scrap must arise from a manufacturing process for the provision to apply. Consequently, the demand raised by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 206C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to a person engaged solely in the trading of scrap, as the scrap must arise from a manufacturing process for the provision to apply. Consequently, the demand raised by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment was framed ex-parte and the assessee was deprived of furnishing details. To render substantial justice, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for a fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that there was confusion regarding the appropriate form for declarations and that the assessee had already paid the tax demand. Both parties agreed to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of Form 27C.