ITAT Cuttack Judgments — November 2022

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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, 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 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 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.

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.

The Assessing Officer concluded suppression of sales based on seized documents. The Tribunal's decision on this matter is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Assessing Officer concluded suppression of sales based on seized documents. The Tribunal's decision on this matter is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal restored the issue of raw material consumption expenses to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, noting that the audit report provided only quantitative details. The issue of sundry creditors was also restored for re-adjudication.

The Assessing Officer concluded suppression of sales based on seized documents. The Tribunal's decision on this matter is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt.

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) of the Income Tax Act. However, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

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. However, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present arguments under other relevant provisions.

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 to allow the assessee to raise other arguments.