ITAT Cuttack Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal restored the issues regarding the nature of derivative and foreign currency transactions to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, particularly concerning their transaction through recognized stock exchanges. The issue of unsecured loans was also restored for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issues regarding the nature of derivative and foreign currency transactions to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, particularly concerning their transaction through recognized stock exchanges. The issue of unsecured loans was also restored for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was barred by limitation as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, the revision order under Section 263 was also quashed. The Tribunal also found that on merits, the addition was not sustainable as the AO had already examined the details and found them to be part of the assessee's turnover.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the delay. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication after allowing the assessee to explain the delay and substantiate its case.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claims. The assessee had failed to provide details to the AO and CIT(A) earlier.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the source of the demonetized currency deposited. The large cash balance claimed by the assessee was found to be improbable for a fruit vendor, and the assessee did not provide evidence of receiving these notes after demonetization. Therefore, the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the additional ground challenging the AO's conversion of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny was devoid of merit as the capital gain issue was within the scope of limited scrutiny. It also held that the deduction under Section 54F is allowable only for one residential unit, not multiple flats received as consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had good and sufficient reasons for accepting the cash payment, as per the proviso to Section 271DA(1). The immediate deposit of the cash into the bank account demonstrated no intention to violate the law.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) due to improper service of notices. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) and AO for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing, subject to a nominal cost.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment applications due to the lack of a signed Power of Attorney and the assessee's non-cooperation. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication and assimilation of correct facts.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, a 30% disallowance on a specific amount was justified based on a prior Tribunal order. For AY 2009-10, no disallowance was warranted as per the prior order. The revenue's appeals were dismissed due to falling below the monetary limit for appeals.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, a 30% disallowance on a specific amount was justified based on a prior Tribunal order. For AY 2009-10, no disallowance was warranted as per the prior order. The revenue's appeals were dismissed due to falling below the monetary limit for appeals.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) due to improper service of notices. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) and AO for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing, subject to a nominal cost.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment applications due to the lack of a signed Power of Attorney and the assessee's non-cooperation. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication and assimilation of correct facts.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment applications due to the lack of a signed Power of Attorney and the assessee's non-cooperation. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication and assimilation of correct facts.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, a 30% disallowance on a specific amount was justified based on a prior Tribunal order. For AY 2009-10, no disallowance was warranted as per the prior order. The revenue's appeals were dismissed due to falling below the monetary limit for appeals.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, a 30% disallowance on a specific amount was justified based on a prior Tribunal order. For AY 2009-10, no disallowance was warranted as per the prior order. The revenue's appeals were dismissed due to falling below the monetary limit for appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, finding merit in the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after providing reasonable opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa. Consequently, all consequential proceedings and orders were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.

The Tribunal held that the flats were allotted and payments were made within the stipulated period, and that the four flats constituted a single residential unit. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 54F.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after providing reasonable opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the dominant use of assets for hiring business, not the quantum of income, determines eligibility for higher depreciation. The Pr. CIT's order was modified to allow higher depreciation on assets used for hiring.