Loading ITAT cases…
317 tribunal orders from the Cuttack bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 317 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the higher income disclosed by the assessee in its computation provided an adequate source for the fixed deposits. The Tribunal also noted that fixed deposits in family members' names could not be added to the assessee's income.
The tribunal held that the payments for shortage of iron ore fines were compensation for violation of license terms and thus business expenditure. For donations, it was held that without 80G certificates, the disallowance needed to be increased.
The Tribunal held that accumulated profits for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) should be considered as on the date of giving the loans or advances. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after verifying accumulated profits on the date of granting advances.
The Tribunal held that accumulated profits for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) should be considered as on the date of giving the loans or advances. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after verifying accumulated profits on the date of granting advances.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn. The revenue's appeal was admitted after condoning a delay. The core issue revolves around the AO's disallowance of losses claimed by the assessee in derivative trading and treating the income as unexplained.
The Tribunal held that since the audit report was filed before the completion of assessment and the revenue did not issue a notice for defective return, the delay in filing the audit report was implicitly condoned. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revision order was unsustainable as the AO had conducted in-depth inquiries and the issues raised were either considered in the preceding assessment year or accepted in the scrutiny assessment of the impugned year. The revisionary order was quashed.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the Rs. 50,000/- addition as withdrawn. For the other appeal, the disallowance of 10% of expenses was reduced to 5%, following a coordinate bench decision.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the Rs. 50,000/- addition as withdrawn. For the other appeal, the disallowance of 10% of expenses was reduced to 5%, following a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to invoke Section 115BBE on the addition made under Section 69A was an error prejudicial to revenue. Similarly, the non-deduction of TDS on payments to Bajaj Finance Ltd. also constituted an error. However, for other issues raised by the Pr. CIT, the Tribunal found no basis to deem the assessment order erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT could not use revisionary powers to direct additions on issues not connected to the limited scrutiny issues. Since no error was pointed out in the original assessment concerning the limited scrutiny issues, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It upheld the Pr. CIT's revision regarding the non-application of Section 115BBE but modified the directions for assessing the income from cash deposits, restoring the issue to the AO for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT cannot substitute his opinion for that of the AO under the guise of revision. The issues raised by the Pr.CIT had already been examined by the AO during the original assessment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. This was due to the failure of the assessee to cure the defects pointed out in the defect notices.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had already examined the salaries paid to the governing body members in detail and found them to be reasonable and even lower than market and AICTE approved rates. Therefore, the revision order passed by the CIT(E) was unsubstantiated.
The tribunal held that employees' PF/ESI contributions paid late are not allowable under section 36(1)(va) and 43B, but allowed the issue to be restored to AO for considering allowability under section 37(1). Employer's PF/ESI and CGST/SGST paid before the income tax return filing due date were directed to be allowed.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application due to the advocate's lack of authorization and the assessee's prior non-compliance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the assessee failed to comply with the proceedings before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the evidence of capital purchases was not produced before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were time-barred because they were dispatched significantly after the prescribed limitation period. The High Court's decision in a related case was followed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were time-barred because they were dispatched significantly after the prescribed limitation period. The High Court's decision in a related case was followed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were time-barred because they were dispatched significantly after the prescribed limitation period. The High Court's decision in a related case was followed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were time-barred because they were dispatched significantly after the prescribed limitation period. The High Court's decision in a related case was followed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were time-barred because they were dispatched significantly after the prescribed limitation period. The High Court's decision in a related case was followed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were time-barred because they were dispatched significantly after the prescribed limitation period. The High Court's decision in a related case was followed.
The Tribunal deleted the adhoc disallowance on sales promotion and general expenses, stating that since the books of account were not rejected and relevant documents were produced, such disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the High Court's direction and the principle of substantial justice over technicality. However, since no evidence was produced before the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, holding that delayed employee contributions to PF and ESI are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) even if paid before the return filing due date. However, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an ad-hoc disallowance is not permissible when the books of account have not been rejected. If a disallowance is warranted, it must be specific and identifiable, which was not done in this case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The issue of granting credit for prepaid taxes was restored to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, held that delayed employee contributions to PF and ESI are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va). However, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable on facts, particularly as the Pr. CIT had taken a contradictory stand on the ownership of the property. The Tribunal also noted that the construction was not completed within the stipulated period and the developer was in jail, raising questions about the leviability of capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the capital introduced by M/s. Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited could not be treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee firm, especially since the firm had not commenced its business. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal held that amendments made to remove hardship are clarificatory in nature, following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was directed to be restricted to 30%.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, was clarificatory and retrospective in nature, intended to remove hardship. Therefore, the disallowance should be restricted to 30%.
The Tribunal held that since the total deposit of Rs. 56 lakhs was accepted and the Rs. 3 lakhs in SBNs was part of this accepted amount, and given that a substantial portion of the assessee's business was in cash, the addition was unjustified.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd., acknowledged that delayed payments of employee contributions to PF and ESI are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va). However, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting liberty to the assessee to raise all necessary arguments.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, penalty should have been levied under Section 271AAA and not Section 271(1)(c). For other assessment years, the penalty was deleted due to non-striking of inappropriate words in the penalty notice and because the income was assessed on an estimated basis without evidence of concealment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's ledger account clearly showed the closing balance matching the creditor's confirmation, and the disputed amount was a payment. Therefore, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, penalty should have been levied under Section 271AAA and not Section 271(1)(c). For other assessment years, the penalty was deleted due to non-striking of inappropriate words in the penalty notice and because the income was assessed on an estimated basis without evidence of concealment.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, penalty should have been levied under Section 271AAA and not Section 271(1)(c). For other assessment years, the penalty was deleted due to non-striking of inappropriate words in the penalty notice and because the income was assessed on an estimated basis without evidence of concealment.