ITAT Cuttack Judgments — January 2023

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted adequate time to produce evidence during remand proceedings due to geographical distance. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the HUF claim was not considered by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the HUF claim and the status of co-owners, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's revisional powers under Section 263 were limited to the issues raised in the original limited scrutiny assessment. Since the Principal CIT raised new issues not part of the limited scrutiny, his revisionary order was considered invalid.

The tribunal restored the issue of Peripheral Development Expenses of Rs. 21,24,623/- to the AO for fresh examination. It allowed Peripheral Development Expenses of Rs. 15,55,065/- incurred within 50 kms of mining operations. The disallowance of business development expenses was deleted, and the addition for charity and donation was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure for land improvement was allowable as the assessee had provided ledger extracts. Regarding Section 54F, it was held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction only for the portion of the property used as a residence, as the property was partly commercial and partly residential.

The Tribunal held that since no addition was made in the consequential assessment order, the appeal filed by the assessee has become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure for land improvement was allowable as the assessee had provided ledger extracts. Regarding Section 54F, it was held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction only for the portion of the property used as a residence, as the property was partly commercial and partly residential.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision was unsustainable. It noted that there was no variation in the quantity of closing stock and that any adjustment would be revenue neutral by shifting income between years, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal also followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for the subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have granted the assessee adequate opportunity to rectify the defect. Since the assessee has since filed separate appeals, the matter is restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the technical breach due to the transition to faceless hearings but noted that restoring appeals to the CIT(A) would be unhelpful as evidence was not produced before the AO. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the technical breach due to the transition to faceless hearings but noted that restoring appeals to the CIT(A) would be unhelpful as evidence was not produced before the AO. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to counter the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal was decided on merits due to the assessee's persistent non-appearance and lack of documentation.

The Tribunal acknowledged the technical breach due to the transition to faceless hearings but noted that restoring appeals to the CIT(A) would be unhelpful as evidence was not produced before the AO. Therefore, the issues were 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). However, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

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). However, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the incorrect entry of the date was a mistake apparent from the record, which was rectifiable under Section 154. The Assessing Officer was directed to rectify the order.

The tribunal reduced the estimated net profit rate from 11% to 6% for AY 2010-11, finding the AO's comparables unsuitable. The tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions for sundry creditors, deeming them to be trade creditors.

The tribunal reduced the estimated net profit rate from 11% to 6% for AY 2010-11, finding the AO's comparables unsuitable. The tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions for sundry creditors, deeming them to be trade creditors.

The tribunal reduced the estimated net profit rate from 11% to 6% for AY 2010-11, finding the AO's comparables unsuitable. The tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions for sundry creditors, deeming them to be trade creditors.

The tribunal reduced the estimated net profit rate from 11% to 6% for AY 2010-11, finding the AO's comparables unsuitable. The tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions for sundry creditors, deeming them to be trade creditors.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause due to her auditor's failure and subsequent actions. The Tribunal also deleted the addition made by the AO regarding capital introduction for the purchase of a JD loader, but confirmed the disallowance under Chapter VIA.

The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and restored the matter to the CIT(A). The assessee was granted one more opportunity to appear and cooperate with the appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's direction to tax the cash in hand amounted to forcing his opinion over the AO's plausible view, which is not permissible under Section 263. The order of the Pr.CIT was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary order was in the nature of a fishing and roving inquiry and was not permissible. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all evidence and explanations, and the Assessing Officer had considered them.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had adequately examined the issue of corpus donations during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(E) failed to verify the additional information provided by the assessee in response to the show cause notice.

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 263 was on a deceased assessee. It noted the delays in obtaining statutory certificates due to the Covid period and the inability to extend limitation periods for fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were invalid as they did not quantify the alleged escaped income. Furthermore, the foundation of the allegations of illegal mining did not exist at the time of reopening, rendering the notice invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were invalid as they did not quantify the alleged escaped income. Furthermore, the foundation of the allegations of illegal mining did not exist at the time of reopening, rendering the notice invalid.

The Tribunal held that most of the issues raised by the Pr.CIT were already examined by the AO or substantiated by the assessee's records. However, the claim of interest under house property was not examined by the AO, thus upholding the revisionary proceedings on that specific issue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the miscellaneous application and, in light of this, dismissed the application.

The Tribunal held that leave encashment is allowable on actual payment basis, following the Supreme Court decision in Exide Industries Ltd. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of deduction on actual payment.

The Tribunal held that the NPV expenditure is revenue in nature, consistent with previous decisions. It also found that issues related to ore valuation and opening/closing stock were either covered by earlier consistent accounting practices or were not properly considered for revision in the current assessment year. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings on these grounds were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not applying Section 115BBE to the unexplained deposits and by applying a blanket 8% profit estimation when the turnover exceeded the Section 44AD limit. The Pr. CIT's revision order was therefore justified.

The Tribunal held that leave encashment is allowable on actual payment basis, following the Supreme Court decision in Exide Industries Ltd. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of deduction on actual payment.

The assessee's representative stated that they did not wish to press the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that adhoc payments to labourers are not statutory bonus and thus Section 43B does not apply, allowing the deletion of the disallowance. Higher depreciation was denied as the machinery was not hired out. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was restricted to 30%.

The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 cannot be invoked solely on the basis of a change of opinion, especially when all relevant materials were available during the original assessment. The reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to verify the addresses provided by the assessee before making the addition. The presumption that all advances were bogus was considered far-fetched without proper verification.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the penalty on merits and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the possibility of notices not being received.