ITAT Cuttack Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given due opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given due opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given due opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given due opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for readjudication, allowing the assessee to raise all grounds.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices and provide supporting evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case with documentary evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the lower authorities. The appeals were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the lower authorities. The appeals were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the lower authorities. The appeals were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the lower authorities. The appeals were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of hearing and undertook to cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted through a recognized stock exchange, Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid, and the assessee regularly dealt in shares. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue were not met. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order, finding no loss to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequate cash in its books to explain the deposits and that the AO had also accepted this. The reliance on a previous case was deemed inapplicable to the present facts.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 60,00,000. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the lower authorities. The appeals were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue were not met. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order, finding no loss to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue were not met. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order, finding no loss to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decisions in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. and M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Therefore, the disallowance of delayed payments of employee's contribution to PF and ESI is upheld.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the appeal falls within the purview of the CBDT Instruction regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect is below Rs. 60 lakhs, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that the assessee should not suffer due to the counsel's delay. The issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish all required documents, failing which the AO could pass an order as per law.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence. This is subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 25,000/-.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Revenue failed to demonstrate any perversity or error in the facts recorded. The Tribunal noted that it is the AO's duty to respond to communications from appellate authorities.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of the Revenue's appeal before the High Court on the quantum addition does not justify reviving the penalty proceedings. Since the quantum addition no longer exists, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty requires no interference.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was passed after the period of limitation had expired, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the revision order passed under Section 263 against an invalid order was also quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to pass an order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot be made without a substantive assessment. Since no substantive assessment was made in the hands of the individual lessee when the protective assessment was initiated against the firm, the reassessment order was deemed illegal.

The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot be made without a substantive assessment. Since no substantive assessment was made in the hands of the individual lessee when the protective assessment was initiated against the firm, the reassessment order was deemed illegal.

The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot be made without a substantive assessment. Since no substantive assessment was made in the hands of the individual lessee when the protective assessment was initiated against the firm, the reassessment order was deemed illegal.

The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot be made without a substantive assessment. Since no substantive assessment was made in the hands of the individual lessee when the protective assessment was initiated against the firm, the reassessment order was deemed illegal.

The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot be made without a substantive assessment. Since no substantive assessment was made in the hands of the individual lessee when the protective assessment was initiated against the firm, the reassessment order was deemed illegal.

The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot be made without a substantive assessment. Since no substantive assessment was made in the hands of the individual lessee when the protective assessment was initiated against the firm, the reassessment order was deemed illegal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment, as information unearthed during the search regarding loan companies was incriminating. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment year was not unabated as the time for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) was still available.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order regarding the violation of sections 269SS and 269T before initiating penalty proceedings. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the penalty levied was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order regarding the violation of sections 269SS and 269T before initiating penalty proceedings. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the penalty levied was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsupported by evidence such as bank transactions, partnership deed, or certified balance sheets. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the firm's details and the lack of proper verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 143(2) by an officer without jurisdiction is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on such a notice is liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The penalty issue will be considered by the CIT(A) after the quantum assessment is decided on merits.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to present the trade license and bank account statements to justify their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for accepting SBN due to the exceptional circumstances of selling liquor, where opened bottles could not be returned. The AO had accepted the assessee's sales and stock, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to present their case with all relevant details and documents before the NFAC.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The penalty issue will be considered by the CIT(A) after the quantum assessment is decided on merits.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) was given discretion to consider the penalty issue after the quantum assessment.

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

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and the direction from the Pr. CIT did not provide any specific reasons for exclusion. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The penalty issue will be considered by the CIT(A) after the quantum assessment is decided on merits.