ITAT Cuttack Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal held that the commission was paid in the normal course of business, TDS was deducted, and recipients declared the income in their returns. Therefore, the commission is a genuine expense.

The assessee sought to withdraw the current appeal before the ITAT as they had filed a fresh appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC against the consequential order. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by enhancing the assessment without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to show cause, as mandated by Section 251(2). The enhancement made by the CIT(A) was therefore unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO, remitting the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was granted in the interest of justice, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The assessee was directed to cooperate and make due compliance before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for readjudication. The assessee was granted a fresh opportunity to be heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) for expeditious disposal.

The Tribunal found the estimation of income at 8% to be unsupported. Considering the assessee's subsequent profit margins, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 1% of the total turnover.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not represent their case before the CIT(A) despite opportunities. In the interest of justice, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide necessary evidence and documents.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were incurred during the business operations of the assessee and were allowable, even if the word 'provision' was inadvertently used in the journal entry. The disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide documentary evidence. The assessee was given one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause. However, considering the substantial opportunities already granted by the CIT(A) and the assessee's failure to produce details before the AO, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal quashed the Section 263 orders and consequently the orders of the CIT(A) upholding them, allowing those appeals. For the Section 147/143(3) appeals, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for readjudication after affording reasonable opportunities.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to file documentary evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present documentary evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause. However, considering the substantial opportunities already granted by the CIT(A) and the assessee's failure to produce details before the AO, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an opportunity to produce documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause. However, considering the substantial opportunities already granted by the CIT(A) and the assessee's failure to produce details before the AO, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to submit documentary evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 10(38) as the revenue failed to provide evidence to rebut the genuineness of the transactions. The addition representing alleged commission was also deleted.

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

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions for suppressed sales without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The assessee provided a chart showing sales to related parties were at comparable or higher rates, and no incriminating material was found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions for suppressed sales without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The assessee provided a chart showing sales to related parties were at comparable or higher rates, and no incriminating material was found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions for suppressed sales without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The assessee provided a chart showing sales to related parties were at comparable or higher rates, and no incriminating material was found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions for suppressed sales without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The assessee provided a chart showing sales to related parties were at comparable or higher rates, and no incriminating material was found during the search.

The Tribunal deleted the addition for unexplained cash deposits and closing balances, stating they were part of the turnover. However, it confirmed the addition for interest income as it's assessable under 'income from other sources'. The AO was directed to estimate income at 8% on the short turnover.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions for suppressed sales without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The assessee provided a chart showing sales to related parties were at comparable or higher rates, and no incriminating material was found during the search.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case. This was done in the interest of natural justice, as the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issues to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was also directed to present their case without seeking further adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO relied on a prospective amendment that was not applicable to the assessment year. The reopening was also considered a change of opinion on an issue already considered during the original assessment.

The Tribunal noted that a consequential order had already been passed giving effect to the Section 263 order and the assessee had chosen to pursue an alternate remedy before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal decided not to interfere with the Principal CIT's order to avoid prejudicing the assessee's case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law due to the absence of any enquiry conducted by the Pr. CIT before passing the order. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision which was upheld by the Supreme Court, stating that an order under Section 263 requires some basis or enquiry to form a view that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal did not provide a specific holding in the provided excerpt as it appears to be the beginning of the judgment. Further details are needed to ascertain the tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 for depreciation calculation as it was applicable from the subsequent financial year. Therefore, the disallowance of excess depreciation was deleted, and consequently, the addition to book profit was also deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish adequate opportunities to substantiate its claims.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reason of illness. It was held that in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reason of illness. It was held that in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the assessee to submit evidence to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the issue. This was granted in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not maintain books of accounts, the penalty under Section 271B for non-audit was not sustainable. Additionally, the penalty order was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's failure to represent the case properly, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that crucial facts regarding the nature of property sold and purchased were not clear from the lower authorities' orders and restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and substantiate its claims, considering the lack of response to online notices.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not maintain books of accounts, the penalty under Section 271B for non-audit was not sustainable. Additionally, the penalty order was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.