ITAT Cuttack Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal held that the addition for share application money was justified due to the proviso to Section 68. It allowed the donation expenses as business expenditure. However, it upheld the disallowance of interest on late TDS, citing judicial precedents.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate, and the CIT(A) was instructed to provide a due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the AO had already conducted proper verification during the original assessment. The Pr.CIT's action was based on a change of opinion and not on any material showing the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the late filing. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity to furnish required details.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. This was primarily because the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted by the CIT(A). Additionally, the penalty notice was found to be vague regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which it was levied.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not rejected the books of account, but made an ad-hoc disallowance due to non-production of bills. It also found that the CIT had considered the assessee's reply. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding limitation and non-consideration of reply.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G cannot be sustained as the assessee already possesses registration under Section 12AA. The CIT(Exemptions) did not doubt the assessee's objects or any violations of Section 80G conditions.

The Tribunal held that the AO was correct in allowing depreciation after estimating net profit, as the assessee's turnover exceeded the limit for Section 44AD, making depreciation mandatory. Therefore, the revision order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the request of the assessee's counsel to withdraw all the appeals. The learned CIT (DR) did not object to this request.

The Tribunal allowed the request of the assessee's counsel to withdraw all the appeals. The learned CIT (DR) did not object to this request.

The Tribunal acceded to the request of the assessee's authorized representative and permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal acceded to the request of the assessee's authorized representative and permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the request of the assessee's counsel to withdraw all the appeals. The learned CIT (DR) did not object to this request.

The Tribunal allowed the request of the assessee's counsel to withdraw all the appeals. The learned CIT (DR) did not object to this request.

The Tribunal allowed the request of the assessee's counsel to withdraw all the appeals. The learned CIT (DR) did not object to this request.

The Tribunal allowed the request of the assessee's counsel to withdraw all the appeals. The learned CIT (DR) did not object to this request.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the order under section 263 had become infructuous. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat advances as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and confirmed the addition of income from other sources, finding the assessee failed to explain the source of deposits. The ground regarding disallowance of interest on house building loan was also dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal on the grounds that they had already availed registration under Section 10(23C) of the Act. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had already obtained the required registration. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had subsequently paid the admitted tax and there was no history of default, the penalty imposed under Section 221(1) was not justified. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had subsequently paid the admitted tax and there was no history of default, the penalty imposed under Section 221(1) was not justified. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not have registration under section 12AA, it should be treated as an AOP. In such cases, incidental expenditures incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income are allowable under section 57(iii). The presumption of the CIT(A) regarding an audit report was not substantiated.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It held that interest earned on fixed deposits during the pre-operative period is a capital receipt and should be set off against pre-operative expenses, not taxed as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A), directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay for AY 2012-13 and grant another opportunity. The assessee was directed to pay costs and cooperate.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The delay in filing for AY 2012-13 was condoned, and the assessee was directed to pay costs.

The Tribunal restored the matter of operative expenses to the AO for verification, noting that the assessee had provided a ledger account for stamp duty and registration charges. For land development expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition but restored the issue concerning three sub-contractors who denied work for further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause due to the gross negligence of the previous AR and the principles of substantial justice over technicalities. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that puja expenses incurred for the smooth functioning of the business are allowable. The disallowance on other expenses was restricted to 5% of the total expenses.

The Tribunal restored the issue of operative expenses to the AO for verification, noting that the assessee had provided a ledger account for stamp duty and registration charges. For the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of land development expenses, except for transactions with three sub-contractors who denied work, restoring that portion to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying the exact allegation (concealment or inaccurate particulars) is bad in law. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the notice to be invalid.

The Tribunal has rectified a typographical error in the cause title of its previous order. The specific assessment year and quarter mentioned in the cause title have been corrected as per the assessee's application.

The Tribunal acceded to the request of the assessee trust to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal has rectified a typographical error in the cause title of its previous order. The specific assessment year and quarter mentioned in the cause title have been corrected as per the assessee's application.

The Tribunal has rectified a typographical error in the cause title of its previous order. The specific assessment year and quarter mentioned in the cause title have been corrected as per the assessee's application.

The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal has rectified a typographical error in the cause title of its previous order. The specific assessment year and quarter mentioned in the cause title have been corrected as per the assessee's application.

The Tribunal has rectified a typographical error in the cause title of its previous order. The specific assessment year and quarter mentioned in the cause title have been corrected as per the assessee's application.

The Tribunal has rectified a typographical error in the cause title of its previous order. The specific assessment year and quarter mentioned in the cause title have been corrected as per the assessee's application.