ITAT Cuttack Judgments — August 2024

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay and submit submissions on merits. The CIT(A) is to re-adjudicate both the delay and the merits of the case.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that dismissing an appeal solely on delay defeats the purpose of the Act. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay and submit submissions on merits. The CIT(A) is to re-adjudicate both the delay and the merits of the case.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay and submit submissions on merits. The CIT(A) is to re-adjudicate both the delay and the merits of the case.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal.

The Tribunal held that the previous coordinate bench decision was per incuriam due to the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. and M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. The disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal.

The Tribunal held that only current year data should be considered for transfer pricing analysis for transactions after April 1, 2014. It also directed the exclusion of one comparable company engaged in toll operations from the list used for recomputing the adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent adoption of the project completion method, which was accepted by the department in preceding and subsequent years, should be followed. The AO's deviation from this consistent method without plausible explanation violated the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal noted that crucial evidence available with the Assessing Officer was not shared with the assessee, and substantial fresh evidence was produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that Section 44AD cannot be applied to cases where audit under Section 44AD is applicable. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable as it was based on a borrowed belief and lacked independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The disallowance of expenses was also found to be without basis.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application. As the defects in the appeal were not rectified, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It directed the Assessing Officer to examine the demonetized currency collected by the assessee and allow amounts tallied with the cash book and available as of 8.11.2016, treating any collected thereafter as unexplained income.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be not false and not indicative of negligence. The Tribunal then remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical reasons. However, to grant another opportunity to substantiate the case, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable as it was based on a borrowed belief and lacked independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The disallowance of expenses was also found to be without basis.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) to ensure adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after the CIT(A) passes an order on the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that the appeal fell within the purview of the CBDT circular as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary documents and evidence to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) to ensure adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to produce all evidence to substantiate its claim. This was done in the interest of justice, acknowledging the lack of compliance before the AO and CIT(A).

The tribunal rejected the adjournment application as no reasons were provided. Observing that the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte, the tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent its appeals before the first appellate authority and was unaware of the delay raised. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the Addl/JCIT(A) for readjudication after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce all necessary evidence before the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent its appeals before the first appellate authority and was unaware of the delay raised. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the Addl/JCIT(A) for readjudication after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) lacked proper discussion of facts and issues, and therefore, the matter should be restored for readjudication.

The Tribunal corrected the assessment years to 2014-15 & 2015-16. It also directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 2.25% on the total turnover, instead of the 5% or 8% previously applied by the AO.

The Tribunal corrected the assessment years to 2014-15 & 2015-16. It also directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 2.25% on the total turnover, instead of the 5% or 8% previously applied by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that since the intimation under section 143(1) was issued after April 1, 2017, the provision requiring a show cause notice was applicable, and its absence rendered the intimation invalid.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act when the original return was still pending and within the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is bad in law. Consequently, the notice and the consequential assessment were quashed.

The tribunal noted that the appeal was filed late and the defects were not rectified by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for default.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, which restricted disallowance to 30%, was clarificatory and retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance should be restricted to 30%.

The Tribunal held that the payments were made to cultivators for agricultural produce, which is an exception under Rule 6DD(e) and clarified by CBDT Circular No. 27/2017. Therefore, no disallowance under Section 40A(3) was warranted.

The Tribunal held that since the amount was admittedly received as corpus donation, its application towards the object was not a matter to be verified. Therefore, the CIT's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal agreed with the Principal CIT that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the lack of meaningful inquiry. However, it modified the order, remanding the issue of bank deposits back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the source.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on two grounds: delay in filing and non-production of evidence. The assessee failed to provide any reasons for the delay or evidence to support its claim regarding non-deduction of TDS on transport charges.

The Tribunal agreed with the Principal CIT that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the lack of meaningful inquiry. However, it modified the order, remanding the issue of bank deposits back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the source.

The Tribunal held that while the assessment order might be erroneous, it was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr.CIT's order did not satisfy the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made in the intimation under Section 143(1) for the wrong filing of Form 10BB was not a permissible adjustment. The filing of the correct form before the appellate authority should have been considered.

The Tribunal held that the addition of the entire amount was not justified as the husband had disclosed a portion, and the assessee, being an NRI with no other income source, could not have generated such demonetized currency. The addition was deleted.

The tribunal upheld the addition for demonetized currency as the assessee could not prove its source and was not an authorized entity. However, the addition for commission payments was deleted as the recipients confirmed receipt, disclosed income, paid taxes, and TDS was made.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to condone the delay in filing the audit report. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing an appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for peripheral development charges, finding it was incurred for commercial expediency and to facilitate uninterrupted business operations. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, investments were presumed to be out of these funds, and no disallowance was warranted.