ITAT Cuttack Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO had not made proper inquiries. However, the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee on certain additions related to stock and sundry creditors, partly allowing one of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO had not made proper inquiries. However, the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee on certain additions related to stock and sundry creditors, partly allowing one of the appeals.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the suppressed commission income was offered to tax in the succeeding assessment year. If confirmed, the addition would be deleted; otherwise, the revisionary order would stand.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because the Assessing Officer failed to make proper inquiries into the cash payments that prima facie violated Section 40A(3). Therefore, the Principal CIT's action of setting aside the assessment order was justified.

The Tribunal held that the datum loss claimed by the assessee was an allowable expenditure. It was not a penalty for breach of contract and was deductible under Section 37(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order setting aside the assessment. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's contention regarding payments made in multiple transactions, where individual transactions did not exceed the specified limit, before disallowing them under Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal noted the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and allowed the early hearing petitions. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not be added to book profit under Section 115JB. The addition of interest on income tax refund as unexplained cash credit was deleted. The issue of interest on fixed deposit was remitted to the AO for further verification.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals after noting their compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals after noting their compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as a fresh assessment order had been passed. The Revenue did not object to this request. The Tribunal acceded to the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.