ITAT Cuttack Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not validly served on the assessee or its authorized representative within the prescribed time. Therefore, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in initiating revision proceedings based on incorrect facts and without proper application of mind. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiries during the original assessment.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) passed the revisionary order in violation of principles of natural justice by not considering the assessee's reply and by relying on incorrect and irrelevant facts. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) wrongly stated that no reply was filed and that the issues raised were not applicable to the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient enquiry and taken a plausible view by estimating profit at 8% under Section 44AD, considering the assessee's explanation and submitted documents. Therefore, the revisionary order passed by the Pr. CIT was quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the employees' contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the additions made by the AO were not justified. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the applicability of Section 43B to employee contributions, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the additions made by the AO were incorrect. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the applicability of Section 43B to employee contributions, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly considered the evidence already on record and that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative, having retrospective effect. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Sections 36 and 43B of the Income Tax Act, which clarified the treatment of employee contributions, was prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year 2017-2018, the addition made on account of delayed deposit of employee contributions to PF & ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return, was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deposit of employee contributions to PF and ESI, are prospective and applicable from assessment year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, if the deposit was made before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the CBDT circular regarding the maximum marginal rate for AOPs and did not provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36 and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the disallowance of late payments of employee contributions to PF and ESI, are prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question (2018-19 and 2019-20), the disallowance was not justified if payments were made before the return filing due date.

The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the additions made by the AO were incorrect. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the applicability of Section 43B to employee contributions, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the additions made by the AO were incorrect. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, which made such late payments disallowable, is prospective and applicable from assessment year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year 2018-2019, if the employee contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the addition is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36 and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the disallowance of late payments of employee contributions to PF and ESI, are prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question (2018-19 and 2019-20), the disallowance was not justified if payments were made before the return filing due date.

The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the additions made by the AO were incorrect. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the applicability of Section 43B to employee contributions, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the additions made by the AO were incorrect. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the applicability of Section 43B to employee contributions, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the additions made by the AO were incorrect. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the applicability of Section 43B to employee contributions, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that its activities were charitable and for the benefit of the public at large. The objects were found to be primarily for the benefit of the member institutions, violating Section 13 of the Act, and the profit motive was evident.

The Tribunal upheld the revision order, agreeing that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries into significant financial transactions and discrepancies. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted inquiries and verified documents. The Pr. CIT's conclusion that the order was erroneous and prejudicial was not justified as the AO had made a plausible assessment based on the available information.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing them before the lower authorities. The appeals were allowed, and the matters were restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT must demonstrate a patent error and prejudice to revenue before invoking revisionary powers. If an inquiry is deemed insufficient, the Pr. CIT should conduct their own inquiry rather than merely setting aside the order based on suspicion.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing them before the lower authorities. The appeals were allowed, and the matters were restored to the AO for fresh assessment.