ITAT Cuttack Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the unexplained delay. Since no reasons for condonation were provided, the Tribunal could not examine them.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment petition and admitted the appeal. Considering the interest of justice and to provide another opportunity, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with liberty to decide on merits if the assessee again fails to appear.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for readjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to furnish documentary evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the unexplained and excessive delay in filing. The Tribunal found no grounds to condone the delay as no reasons were furnished.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for filing Form 10AB to June 30, 2024. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside and the issue was restored for readjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claims. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate his case with evidence, considering the ex-parte nature of the original assessment.

The provided text is an excerpt and does not contain the tribunal's decision or reasoning. Therefore, the holding cannot be determined from this snippet.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000/- and cooperating by providing documentary evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. Liberty was granted to the assessee to file a fresh appeal against the original intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal found procedural irregularities in widening the scope of scrutiny without proper approval. Following jurisdictional High Court precedent, the matter was restored to the AO for readjudication after rectifying procedural errors.

The ITAT held that issuing a show cause notice before making adjustments under Section 143(1) is compulsory. As no show cause notice was issued, the intimation under Section 143(1) was quashed.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the unexplained delay. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order as no reasons for condonation were provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to accept the resolution dated 31.3.2014, examine it as per law, and consider the remuneration payment on merits after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, acknowledging that the assessee cooperated when physical notices were received and had provided VAT return details.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to allow them to submit documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate authority, citing the reasons of management changes and the nature of the assessee as an employee gratuity trust. The issues were restored to the file of the lower appellate authority for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 145 days, acknowledging that emails can go to spam folders. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not yet decided the substantive issues.

The Tribunal noted that a CBDT circular extended the due date for filing Form No. 10AB. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside and the issue was restored for readjudication, considering the application as within time.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned assessment year was the first year of business and the assessee had shown the highest net profit. Considering the subsequent years' accepted profit rates, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the net profit at 2.75% on the turnover.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence was crucial for adjudicating the appeal. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after allowing the assessee to present evidence and be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was observed that the assessment order was passed very quickly after the show cause notice, not allowing sufficient time for the assessee to provide details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present evidence regarding cash deposits from business transactions, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case and evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was based on a mere technicality and did not demonstrate any prejudice to the revenue. Both forms contained the necessary information for assessment.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for filing Form 10AB. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside and the issue was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for readjudication, treating the application as within time.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) finding the reasons provided to be reasonable. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 194A(3)(v) was prospective, and thus the cooperative bank was not liable for TDS on interest payments for the years under appeal. The gratuity provision issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of approval.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 194A(3)(v) was prospective, and thus the cooperative bank was not liable for TDS on interest payments for the years under appeal. The gratuity provision issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of approval.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 194A(3)(v) was prospective, and thus the cooperative bank was not liable for TDS on interest payments for the years under appeal. The gratuity provision issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of approval.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 194A(3)(v) was prospective, and thus the cooperative bank was not liable for TDS on interest payments for the years under appeal. The gratuity provision issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of approval.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 194A(3)(v) was prospective, and thus the cooperative bank was not liable for TDS on interest payments for the years under appeal. The gratuity provision issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of approval.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the issues in relation to the assessee's written submissions nor called for further information. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the entire agricultural income of Rs. 8,50,000 should be accepted. It also found that the assessee's cash balance, agricultural income, and pre-demonetization withdrawal exceeded the Rs. 20,00,000 deposit, thus deleting the addition.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices promptly.

The tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment petition and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits in the absence of the assessee. The specific decision on merits is not detailed in the provided text.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to produce necessary evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the Form 26AS and bank statements corroborated the assessee's claim of having earned only Rs. 2,23,052. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the correct income.

The Tribunal held that while lack of Section 12A registration means income is assessed as business income, expenses related to such receipts must still be considered. The matter was restored to the AO for examination and allowance of eligible expenses.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO without seeking adjournments.

For AY 1992-93, the revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect, and the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed. For AY 1995-96, the appeal was restored to the AO for readjudication as the CIT(A)'s order lacked clarity on the relief granted.

For AY 1992-93, the revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect, and the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed. For AY 1995-96, the appeal was restored to the AO for readjudication as the CIT(A)'s order lacked clarity on the relief granted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify which limb of Section 270A(9) was invoked in the show cause notice. The Tribunal also found the claim for license fees to be bona fide and not a misrepresentation.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to redecide the matter after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee had not substantiated its claim regarding brought forward losses before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, since the assessee had not responded to notices from the CIT(A) to substantiate its claim regarding carried forward losses, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that issuing a show cause notice is compulsory before making any adjustment in an intimation under Section 143(1). Since no such notice was issued, the intimation is quashed.

The Tribunal held that an intimation under Section 143(1) cannot be used to disallow entire expenses without providing reasons. Such an intimation, not reflecting a mistake apparent from the record, is liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that a show-cause notice is mandatory before making any adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, and since none was issued, the intimation stands quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not rectified the defects in the appeal filing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to these procedural deficiencies.