Loading ITAT cases…
370 tribunal orders from the Cuttack bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 370 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the intimation under section 143(1) was issued in violation of the proviso to Section 143(1) as no show cause notice was issued to the assessee. Therefore, the adjustments made without a show cause notice were not permissible.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue deserved to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued without the mandatory show cause notice required by the proviso to Section 143(1). Therefore, the intimation was quashed.
The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the statement of the entry operator violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of the share transactions and allowed the claim for loss.
The tribunal held that the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued without the mandatory show cause notice as required by the proviso to Section 143(1). Therefore, the intimation was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced bills and vouchers before the Assessing Officer. While acknowledging that 1/5th of the expenses were self-made cash vouchers, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to this portion.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all supporting details and appear before the CIT(A) with reasonable opportunity for both parties.
The ITAT, considering the interest of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the lower order, restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all material evidence.
The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's direction to treat the entire difference as undisclosed income was an attempt to force his opinion over the AO's, which is impermissible when the AO has considered the issue and taken a possible view. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to explain before the Pr.CIT.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce material evidence. This was done in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153A was invalid as there was no incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Pr. CIT were already examined by the Assessing Officer, who had formed an opinion. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was an attempt to substitute his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer, which is not permissible. Therefore, the revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could not go into issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. However, the issue regarding the applicability of Rule 7A for computing income from rubber manufacture was within the limited scrutiny scope and thus sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's substantial salary income and other sources of income indicated a likely source for the investment. Therefore, the addition of the silver utensils as undisclosed investment was deleted based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given opportunities but failed to provide evidence before the lower authorities. To ensure natural justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment is illegal if no addition is made on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening. Therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not considered the depreciation claim on intangible assets during the original assessment. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's direction to examine the depreciation claim was correct. However, the direction to 'disallow' was modified to remove the mandatory disallowance, allowing the AO to re-examine.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT could not revise the assessment order on issues not covered by the limited scrutiny, especially when the AO had already examined and accepted the primary issue. The Pr.CIT's order was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce material evidence. This decision was made in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the deposit in the capital gains account scheme is permissible for capital gains arising from the sale of land, especially since the assessee had paid tax on this deposit in a subsequent year. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce material evidence. This was done in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the initial intimation under Section 143(1) was in violation of the proviso as no show cause notice was issued. Furthermore, the withdrawal of condonation of delay in a Section 154 order was considered a debatable issue, which cannot be decided under that section.
The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice to grant the assessee adequate opportunities of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the revised returns filed after the audit and payment of taxes. The initial rejection of appeals by the CIT(A) was deemed a travesty of justice.
The tribunal held that the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued without a mandatory show cause notice, violating the proviso to Section 143(1). Therefore, the intimation was treated as void ab initio and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the sale deeds were executed by the father for his own requirement of money and were genuine transactions. Therefore, the consideration received by the assessee from his father was not taxable as income from undisclosed sources.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the revised returns filed after the audit and payment of taxes. The initial rejection of appeals by the CIT(A) was deemed a travesty of justice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee, being an agricultural produce market committee, was eligible for exemption under Section 10(26AAB). The Tribunal also noted the CIT(A)'s recognition of technical glitches faced by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the revised returns filed after the audit and payment of taxes. The initial rejection of appeals by the CIT(A) was deemed a travesty of justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the defect instead of summarily rejecting the application. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the revised returns filed after the audit and payment of taxes. The initial rejection of appeals by the CIT(A) was deemed a travesty of justice.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) can draw adverse inferences if the assessee continues to be negligent.
The Tribunal held that the condonation application was not validly filed by the assessee, as it was signed by the advocate and not the assessee. Furthermore, the Vakalatnama did not authorize the advocate to sign such applications. Consequently, the appeal was not admitted.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not adequately examined the nature and details of the expenditure. Therefore, the revision order passed under Section 263 by the CIT(Exemptions) was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the revised returns filed after the audit and payment of taxes. The initial rejection of appeals by the CIT(A) was deemed a travesty of justice.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and provide explanations.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly found that the properties did not belong to the assessee-trust and the AO had failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s findings were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was due to a reasonable cause, as the assessee had no control over the CAG's audit process. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee another chance to comply with notices and present its case. The assessee was directed to produce all material evidence.