ITAT Cuttack Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay justifiable due to the retirement of multiple officers in the cooperative society. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case with documentary evidence, as the assessee pleaded for another chance to furnish required documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to plausible reasons provided by the assessee. However, it confirmed the orders passed under Section 263 without going into the merits, as the assessee had not cooperated in the revisionary proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the reasons provided by the assessee were found to be sufficient. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that employee's PF contribution disallowance is upheld based on the Supreme Court's Checkmate Services Ltd. decision. Festival celebration expenses and sales promotion expenses disallowances are deleted. Prior period expenses and Section 40(a)(ia) disallowances are upheld due to lack of evidence or non-compliance.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, granting a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, granting a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issues to the AO for fresh consideration, noting that the assessee had obtained registration under Section 12AA with retrospective effect.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested withdrawal of the appeals as the registration under Section 12A was now granted. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to plausible reasons provided by the assessee. However, it confirmed the orders passed under Section 263 without going into the merits, as the assessee had not cooperated in the revisionary proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the burden of proof by submitting cash book entries and money receipts from collection agents. The cash deposit was found to be backed by sufficient cash balance from credit sales realization.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the assessee's claim of being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, held that the assessee is entitled to immunity from taxation under Article 289. Consequently, the original grounds of appeal became academic.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the assessee's claim of being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, held that the assessee is entitled to immunity from taxation under Article 289. Consequently, the original grounds of appeal became academic.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the assessee's claim of being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, held that the assessee is entitled to immunity from taxation under Article 289. Consequently, the original grounds of appeal became academic.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the assessee's claim of being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, held that the assessee is entitled to immunity from taxation under Article 289. Consequently, the original grounds of appeal became academic.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were initiated against a dead person, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was quashed.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the assessee's claim of being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, held that the assessee is entitled to immunity from taxation under Article 289. Consequently, the original grounds of appeal became academic.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had already disclosed the Rs. 40 lakhs as income from other sources in his profit and loss account, and the CIT(A) had deleted the addition related to cash credit under Section 68, the addition for SBN currency deposit was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not challenge the rejection of books, the estimation of profit at 8% was arbitrary, especially considering the significantly higher turnover in the current year compared to previous years. The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit to 6.5% of business income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been granted registration under Section 12AB, rendering the appeal infructuous. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemption) to consider the assessee's application as being within the extended time limit as per the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were illegal and invalid because the notice was issued after the assessee's registration under Section 12AA was granted. Consequently, the revision proceedings under Section 263, which stemmed from an invalid assessment order, were also without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the plausible reasons provided by the assessee and the novelty of the online system. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the subsequent grant of registration. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal noted an error in the dates presented by the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to re-examine whether the employee's PF contribution for AY 2019-20 was paid within the prescribed due date.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and present its case with supporting evidence, ensuring natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the reopening notice was issued without proper sanction as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as it was issued after four years and approved by an Additional CIT instead of a Commissioner. Consequently, the reassessment order and consequential penalties were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening notice was issued without proper sanction as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as it was issued after four years and approved by an Additional CIT instead of a Commissioner. Consequently, the reassessment order and consequential penalties were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening notice was issued without proper sanction as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as it was issued after four years and approved by an Additional CIT instead of a Commissioner. Consequently, the reassessment order and consequential penalties were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening notice was issued without proper sanction as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as it was issued after four years and approved by an Additional CIT instead of a Commissioner. Consequently, the reassessment order and consequential penalties were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued on April 1, 2021, after the law regarding reopening of assessments was amended. Therefore, the notice was not in compliance with the amended law and was invalid.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, for natural justice, set aside the appellate order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case with evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's action in invoking Section 263 was in order because the issue of cash payments vis-à-vis Section 40A(3) had not been examined by the AO in the original assessment. The assessee failed to produce necessary evidence and confirmations within the stipulated time, making the Pr.CIT's inquiry necessary.

The Tribunal held that taxing the entire excess income without allowing the statutory 15% deduction was a mistake apparent from the record. The AO was directed to allow a deduction of 15% of gross receipts and tax only the shortfall.

The Tribunal held that the return was filed within the extended due date as per CBDT circular, making the assessee eligible for exemption. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue were rejected.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowances for loading charges, donations, service tax, interest on service tax, and ad-hoc disallowances on staff welfare and travelling. However, the disallowance for advertisement expenses was confirmed due to lack of substantiation.