ITAT Cuttack Judgments — August 2022

D.D.BUILDERS LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 13/CTK/2021[2018-19]Status: Heard25 Aug 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that if PF & ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return, even if beyond the respective Act's due date, the same is allowable. This decision followed a coordinate bench ruling and Supreme Court principles.

HOTEL VAMSI KRISHANA PVT.,RAYAGADA vs ITO, RAYAGADA

ITA 68/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: Heard24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10Withdrawn

The tribunal rejected the adjournment application and permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

D.D. BUILDERS LTD.,LADUGAON vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 66/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: Heard24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that customary gifts given during festivals are not disallowable as business promotion expenses and that ad-hoc disallowances are not permissible. Consequently, the disallowances made by the lower authorities were deleted.

SAROJ KUMAR MISHRA,ATHAGARARH vs PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 31/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT did not have a basis to conclude that the AO's examination was inadequate. The revision order was quashed as it directed a re-examination of an already examined issue, which is not permissible under Section 263.

B.B.KAR,ROURKELA vs ITO. WARD-1, ROURKELA

ITA 29/CTK/2022[2019-20]Status: Heard23 Aug 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and that PF & ESIC paid beyond the prescribed date but within the return filing due date is allowable. The disallowance made by the AO and CIT(A) was reversed.

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR vs M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

ITA 264/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Aug 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, the CIT(A)'s order was correct as draft assessment orders were not issued. For 2013-14 and 2014-15, the failure to issue draft assessment orders was considered a procedural lapse, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR vs M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARASUGUDHA

ITA 262/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, the CIT(A)'s order was correct as draft assessment orders were not issued. For 2013-14 and 2014-15, the failure to issue draft assessment orders was considered a procedural lapse, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

ACIT(CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR vs M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

ITA 261/CTK/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, the CIT(A)'s order was correct as draft assessment orders were not issued. For 2013-14 and 2014-15, the failure to issue draft assessment orders was considered a procedural lapse, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

ITA 263/CTK/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Aug 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, the CIT(A)'s order was correct as draft assessment orders were not issued. For 2013-14 and 2014-15, the failure to issue draft assessment orders was considered a procedural lapse, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(!), SAMBALPUR vs M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

ITA 260/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, the CIT(A)'s order was correct as draft assessment orders were not issued. For 2013-14 and 2014-15, the failure to issue draft assessment orders was considered a procedural lapse, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

ODYSSEY MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,AINTHAPALI vs ACIT, SAMBALPUR

ITA 140/CTK/2021[2019-20]Status: Heard17 Aug 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of PF and ESIC paid after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date is not permissible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective, and the law prior to the amendment allowed such payments.

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs JCIT, RANGE-2, SAMBALPUR

ITA 264/CTK/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the upfront lease premium is indeed a capital expenditure. However, considering the assessee's request and CBDT circulars, it directed the Assessing Officer to allow amortization of the expenditure over the lease period.

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs JCIT, SAMBALPUR

ITA 278/CTK/2015[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the upfront lease premium is indeed a capital expenditure. However, considering the assessee's request and CBDT circulars, it directed the Assessing Officer to allow amortization of the expenditure over the lease period.

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

ITA 301/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the upfront lease premium is indeed a capital expenditure. However, considering the assessee's request and CBDT circulars, it directed the Assessing Officer to allow amortization of the expenditure over the lease period.

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD,SAMBALPUR vs JCIT, SAMBALPUR

ITA 325/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the upfront lease premium is indeed a capital expenditure. However, considering the assessee's request and CBDT circulars, it directed the Assessing Officer to allow amortization of the expenditure over the lease period.

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED,SAMBALPUR vs JCIT, RANGE-2, SAMBALPUR

ITA 447/CTK/2015[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the upfront lease premium is indeed a capital expenditure. However, considering the assessee's request and CBDT circulars, it directed the Assessing Officer to allow amortization of the expenditure over the lease period.

SERAJUDDING & CO,KOLKATA vs DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 229/CTK/2020[2008--09]Status: Heard17 Aug 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were quashed, there was no quantum amount on which penalty could be levied. Therefore, the penalty orders had no basis and were liable to be set aside.

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 225/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: Heard17 Aug 2022AY 2004-05Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were quashed, there was no quantum amount on which penalty could be levied. Therefore, the penalty orders had no basis and were liable to be set aside.

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 224/CTK/2020[2003-04]Status: Heard17 Aug 2022AY 2003-04Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were quashed, there was no quantum amount on which penalty could be levied. Therefore, the penalty orders had no basis and were liable to be set aside.

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 228/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: Heard17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were quashed, there was no quantum amount on which penalty could be levied. Therefore, the penalty orders had no basis and were liable to be set aside.

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD,SAMBALPUR vs ACIT, SAMBALPUR

ITA 421/CTK/2013[2010-12]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2022AY 2010-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the upfront lease premium is indeed a capital expenditure. However, considering the assessee's request and CBDT circulars, it directed the Assessing Officer to allow amortization of the expenditure over the lease period.

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD,SAMBALPUR vs DCIT, SAMBALPUR

ITA 73/CTK/2012[2008-09]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the upfront lease premium is indeed a capital expenditure. However, considering the assessee's request and CBDT circulars, it directed the Assessing Officer to allow amortization of the expenditure over the lease period.

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 226/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: Heard17 Aug 2022AY 2005-06Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were quashed, there was no basis for levying penalty. Consequently, the penalty orders were set aside.

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 227/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: Heard17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were quashed, there was no quantum amount on which penalty could be levied. Therefore, the penalty orders had no basis and were liable to be set aside.

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 230/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: Heard17 Aug 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were quashed, there was no quantum amount on which penalty could be levied. Therefore, the penalty orders had no basis and were liable to be set aside.

SANJAY KUMARAGARAWALA,MAYURBHANJ vs PR.CIT, CUTTACK

ITA 254/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind by examining the bank account and forming an opinion to estimate income at 8% on the differential amount. The Pr.CIT's direction to add Rs. 6,28,800 was considered a change of opinion, which is not permissible under Section 263.