ITAT Cuttack Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision for recall if the scheme did not resolve the grievance.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision for recall if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement failed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It also clarified that the dismissal could be recalled if the dispute was not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision for recall if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement failed.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal after noting compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's grounds of appeal regarding the denial of exemption under Section 11. The core issue revolved around the assessee's eligibility for exemption based on its application of receipts and compliance with other provisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12, following its own prior decisions and the Assessing Officer's subsequent allowance for AY 2015-16. Regarding Section 13 violations, the matter was partly restored for determination of specific amounts.

The Tribunal deleted the addition for bogus sundry creditors, finding the amount was a brought-forward balance. It also deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, following a precedent where the AO's satisfaction for applying Rule 8D was not adequately recorded. The commission payment was also deleted, upholding the CIT(A)'s finding that the AO lacked specific defects.

The Tribunal held that if the interest certificates from NBFCs confirm the interest amount and it has been offered to tax by them, then compliance with Section 40(a)(ia) is deemed to be met. The matter was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which aims to settle tax disputes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the disallowance to 2%, considering the nature of the business, expenses, and past assessment years. The Tribunal found no substantial reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, finding that the AO had not applied his mind to verify the genuineness of the advances. The assessee also failed to provide corroborative evidence to establish the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's written submissions regarding the development agreement. The assessment order was based on extraneous reasons and violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the 'loss on OTS' was in the nature of bad debts related to rural advances. As per the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) and Explanation-2, such bad debts could only be allowed to the extent they exceeded the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts. Since the assessee had a substantial credit balance in this provision, the deduction was not allowable.

The tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest not paid before the due date. However, it allowed the deduction for interest paid to NBFCs, holding that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is curative and retrospective, provided the recipient has offered the interest as income and paid tax. The disallowance of interest on mobilization advance was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly applied Section 56(2)(viib) by determining the FMV of the shares and making the addition. The assessee's contention that share application money pending allotment should not be considered a liability was rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the amount was a book adjustment and no actual cash was received from the director during the relevant previous year.

The Tribunal held that while the entire claim of agricultural income was not acceptable due to insufficient evidence, it could not be disallowed entirely given the lease agreement and rent paid. Therefore, a part of the claim was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that if the Section 263 order is quashed, the consequential assessment order under Section 263/143(3) is legally unsustainable. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were rightly deleted.