ITAT Cuttack Judgments — June 2023

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction u/s. 80IA to the CIT(A) for readjudication as it was not adjudicated. The ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of miscellaneous expenses was deleted as it was an estimate.

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction u/s. 80IA to the CIT(A) for readjudication as it was not adjudicated. The ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of miscellaneous expenses was deleted as it was an estimate.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed summarily without discussing the grounds on merits. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction u/s. 80IA to the CIT(A) for readjudication as it was not adjudicated. The ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of miscellaneous expenses was deleted as it was an estimate.

The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 was unsustainable because the Principal CIT had not conducted any inquiry after receiving the assessee's reply, despite the assessee providing explanations and details. The Tribunal followed jurisdictional High Court decisions emphasizing the need for some basis for the CIT's view.

The Tribunal decided that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. The issue of whether the stamp duty value should be considered as the sale consideration was raised.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeals without giving proper opportunities to the assessee. To impart substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the loans could not be treated as deemed dividend as the assessee was not a shareholder in the lending companies, and the jurisdictional High Court's decision supported this. Regarding unexplained cash credits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue during e-assessment and taken a plausible view.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeals without giving proper opportunities to the assessee. To impart substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeals without giving proper opportunities to the assessee. To impart substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeals without giving proper opportunities to the assessee. To impart substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and present documents.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done because the assessee claimed the compliance portal was disabled, preventing them from presenting their case, thus depriving them of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that once books of accounts are rejected under Section 145(3), only income can be estimated, and no further additions can be made by disallowing expenses or relying on unsubstantiated statements. Additions based on the Section 131 statement and disallowance of expenses were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided several opportunities but dismissed the appeals without considering the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided several opportunities but dismissed the appeals without considering the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided several opportunities but dismissed the appeals without considering the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done because the assessee claimed the compliance portal was disabled, preventing them from presenting their case, thus depriving them of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to furnish the required documents. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide the necessary information.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided several opportunities but dismissed the appeals without considering the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided several opportunities but dismissed the appeals without considering the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that once books of accounts are rejected under Section 145(3), only income can be estimated, and no further additions can be made by disallowing expenses or relying on unsubstantiated statements. Additions based on the Section 131 statement and disallowance of expenses were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's directions regarding exclusion of period during the pandemic. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1000/-.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable because the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view and made an estimation of income. The CIT had not pointed out any specific error in the Assessing Officer's view.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment without any fresh material, solely by revisiting previously disclosed material, is not permissible. The reopening was based on a 'change of opinion', which is not a valid ground for reopening.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application based on non-submission of mandatory documents, while the assessee claimed they were not served. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decision that the assessee is a 'State' under Article 289 of the Constitution and thus entitled to immunity from taxation. The Revenue's appeals were rejected.

The tribunal deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of 15% of expenses, stating it was made in vague terms without specific reasons. The issue regarding Section 40(a)(ia) was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, but the assessee did not respond. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case and file evidence before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not responded to notices and had not filed evidence. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case and file necessary evidence before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) are a continuation of the assessment proceedings, and the requirement of filing Form 10 is directory. The AO erred in re-examining the issue instead of verifying the claim of accumulation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decision that the assessee is a 'State' under Article 289 of the Constitution and thus entitled to immunity from taxation. The Revenue's appeals were rejected.

The Tribunal held that since the bank account was an authorized collection point for LIC and the demonetization currency was permitted for LIC collection, the deposits could not be treated as unexplained income. The addition was deleted as the amounts were transferred to LIC.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently followed the completed contract method. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2015-16, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's accounts but found the AO's estimation of 8% to be high. Considering that the assessee had disclosed 3.72% in the revised return and comparable cases showed profit margins between 1% to 2.5%, the Tribunal directed the net profit to be taken at 3.5% of the total turnover.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee was to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. The withdrawal was based on the Assessing Officer passing an order giving effect to the Principal CIT's order, granting relief to the assessee.