ITAT Cuttack Judgments — October 2021

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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to refile if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement was declined later.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 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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 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 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.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to verify the submitted documents, specifically Form 27C, and pass an order considering judicial pronouncements.

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 granted the assessee's request to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The dismissal order can be recalled if the grievance is not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, to render substantial justice, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings. It upheld the additions for conveyance allowance and interest income. However, it set aside the additions for cash and cheque deposits, directing the AO to delete them.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the Assessing Officer did not object to the assessee's submissions during the remand proceedings. The Tribunal also found no violation of Rule 46A in the CIT(A)'s procedure.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to submit documents and present its case. The CIT(E) was directed to pass a reasoned order after considering the submissions.

The tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the assessee an opportunity to present the required documents to the CIT(E). The case was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper hearing.