ITAT Cuttack Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal held that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) extended the limitation period for passing the revisionary order under Section 263. Therefore, the order passed by the Principal CIT was within the extended time limit.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for rejecting the books of account were unsubstantiated. The estimation of income by the AO was deleted. However, interest income received by the JV was rightly assessed in its hands, subject to examination of its disclosure by constituent members.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for rejecting the books of account were unsubstantiated. The estimation of income by the AO was deleted. However, interest income received by the JV was rightly assessed in its hands, subject to examination of its disclosure by constituent members.

The tribunal held that maintenance charges paid to the builder are revenue expenditure and not includible in the cost of the property. However, sinking fund and BWSSB deposits are includible. The tribunal also ruled that indexation for the cost of acquisition should be available from AY 2007-2008 as full payment was made in FY 2006-2007.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was justified. The assessee failed to produce any substantiating evidence for TDS deduction or compliance by the recipients.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(38) as the transactions were genuine, supported by documentary evidence, and similar to previous rulings. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the credit note dated 23.10.2014 was relatable to the assessment year 2015-16. Since the assessee had rightly offered the amount to tax in the correct assessment year, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for assessment year 2014-15 was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the source of the demonetized currency deposit. Since the assessee was not among the exempted categories permitted to transact in demonetized currency after November 8, 2016, the deposit was treated as unexplained investment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 10(38) as the transactions were genuine and supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision in an identical case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue on merits and had dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent her case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that since there was no specific provision in the return to show the computation of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), the disallowance made in the intimation under Section 143(1) was not permissible. The adjustment made in the intimation was set aside.

The Tribunal refused to adjudicate on the interest income issue as no specific ground was raised. For the SBN deposit issue, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the opening cash balance, the correct bank account, and whether the assessee received SBN notes during the demonetization period.