ITAT Cuttack Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening were supplied to the assessee after the assessment order was passed, which is contrary to the established procedure. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating this crucial issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to issue a fresh defect notice for e-filing and dispose of the appeals after granting an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the amounts deposited were out of valid currency withdrawn from the bank as loans and the assessee had provided substantial proof. The AO's addition was based on a presumption that the deposits were unaccounted money, which was not supported by valid arguments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to issue a fresh defect notice for e-filing and dispose of the appeals after granting an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is applicable only to expenditure claimed in the profit and loss account. Since the cash payments were in the nature of advances and no expenditure was debited, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal restored the issues in both appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted adequate opportunities of being heard to represent its cases.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of income on incentives and discounts after estimating income from sales was not permissible. It also found that the AO did not use comparative cases for estimation. The disallowances on sundry creditors and bank balance differences were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the spouse possessed sufficient experience and a science degree, satisfying the proviso to Section 64(1)(ii). The father-in-law's involvement in day-to-day business activities was also deemed sufficient, despite the lack of formal qualifications.

The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard, in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the counsel's failure. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication to provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the reasons for cash payments. The assessee needs to produce evidence that the seller demanded cash payment.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for readjudication, directing the assessee to produce a sample of creditors and debtors for verification. If the sample confirms the submissions, the AO should proceed accordingly.

The Tribunal restored the issues in both appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted adequate opportunities of being heard to present its case.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to issue fresh notice to the legal representative and provide an adequate opportunity to substantiate the deposits.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their claim of agricultural income. Consequently, the penalty order was also set aside to be redone if necessary.

The Tribunal found that not all details were produced before the AO and, in the interest of substantial justice, restored the matter to the AO for readjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all required evidence to substantiate the cash deposits.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their claim of agricultural income. Consequently, the penalty order was also set aside to be redone if necessary.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the extraordinary circumstances faced by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal found that the order passed under Section 263 was unsustainable as it was not supported by the facts and the issues raised in the order differed from those in the show cause notice.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide documentary evidence. This was done considering the assessee's prayer and the circumstances, despite the Revenue's objection.

The Tribunal held that a show cause notice is mandatory before making any adjustments in an intimation under Section 143(1). Since no such notice was issued to the assessee, the intimation is liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file, granting the assessee another opportunity to submit a condonation petition for the delay and present submissions on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. However, it held that since a consequential assessment order had already been passed by the Assessing Officer, the appeal against the Section 263 order had become infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the reasons for the delay were not substantiated with necessary evidence and due to the assessee's non-cooperation with the Pr.CIT. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had already initiated an alternative remedy.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee was granted adequate opportunities to substantiate its claim, considering the AO's partial findings on the production of details.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided supporting documents for the cash belonging to family members and companies, and their assessments were not disturbed, the addition in the hands of the assessee was unjustified. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's own agricultural income declared in cash was accepted by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by enhancing the income from the trading activity without issuing a mandatory show-cause notice to the assessee, as required by Section 251(2). The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the direction under Section 144A was indeed issued without granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard, constituting a technical default. In the interest of justice, the assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that taxes to the extent of Rs. 11,39,440/- had already been recovered as per Form 26AS, which was in excess of the advance tax payable. The CIT(A) erred in not considering this and dismissing the appeal ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases were FOR sales and consolidated payments were made, the assessee did not pay transportation charges separately. Therefore, TDS under Section 194C was not applicable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue. This dismissal is conditional, allowing the revenue to seek restoration of the appeals after the insolvency proceedings are concluded if their interests are affected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue. This dismissal is conditional, allowing the revenue to seek restoration of the appeals after the insolvency proceedings are concluded if their interests are affected.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by enhancing the income from the trading activity without issuing a mandatory show-cause notice to the assessee, as required by Section 251(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the cancellation order was non-est due to the absence of a DIN, but this was stayed by the Supreme Court. On merits, the Tribunal found that the issues leading to the cancellation had already been decided in favour of the assessee by appellate authorities and thus quashed the cancellation order.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Addl. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear and produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for readjudication after the condonation of delay petition is disposed of by the CIT(E). The AO is to consider the Form 9A once the delay is condoned.

The Tribunal held that the assessment on the deceased assessee was invalid as his wife had already disclosed the transactions in her return. The assessment order passed in the name of the deceased was annulled.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the assessee's submission that there was no longer any grievance against the Pr. CIT's order due to the subsequent consequential order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without proper representation from the assessee. To ensure substantial justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as infructuous. This was because the consequential assessment order, passed after the revisional directions, resulted in a Nil taxable income, rendering the appeal moot.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, held that delayed employee contributions to PF and ESIC are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va). However, the issue regarding service tax contribution was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal, respectfully following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, acknowledged that delayed employee contributions to PF and ESIC are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va). However, it restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting liberty to the assessee to raise other arguments.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, held that delayed employee contributions to PF and ESIC are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va). However, the issue regarding service tax contribution was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, acknowledged that delayed employee contributions to PF and ESI are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va). However, it restored the issue to the AO for re-adjudication, granting the assessee liberty to raise arguments under other relevant provisions.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the subsequent assessment order. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, held that delayed employees' PF contributions are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. However, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication, granting liberty to the assessee to raise other arguments.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, holding that delayed employee contributions to PF and ESIC are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va). However, it restored the issue to the AO to allow the assessee to raise other arguments regarding allowability.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, holding that delayed employee contributions to PF and ESIC are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va). However, it restored the issue to the AO to allow the assessee to raise other arguments regarding allowability.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, holding that delayed employee contributions to PF and ESIC are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va). However, it restored the issue to the AO to allow the assessee to raise other arguments regarding allowability.