ITAT Cuttack Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which levies late fees, is dependent on Section 200A for computation. Since Section 200A came into effect on 01.06.2015, Section 234E could only be levied from that date onwards. The CIT(A)'s orders were found to be in line with judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which levies late fees, is dependent on Section 200A for computation. Since Section 200A came into effect on 01.06.2015, Section 234E could only be levied from that date onwards. The CIT(A)'s orders were found to be in line with judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which levies late fees, is dependent on Section 200A for computation. Since Section 200A came into effect on 01.06.2015, Section 234E could only be levied from that date onwards. The CIT(A)'s orders were found to be in line with judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which levies late fees, is dependent on Section 200A for computation. Since Section 200A came into effect on 01.06.2015, Section 234E could only be levied from that date onwards. The CIT(A)'s orders were found to be in line with judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which levies late fees, is dependent on Section 200A for computation. Since Section 200A came into effect on 01.06.2015, Section 234E could only be levied from that date onwards. The CIT(A)'s orders were found to be in line with judicial precedents.

The tribunal found that a Panchanama indicated a search in the assessee's case, contradicting the assessee's claim of no search. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of unsubstantiated technical grounds was upheld.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal. This was done in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee a further opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal. This was done in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee a further opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal. This was done in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee a further opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal. This was done in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee a further opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient information to establish its genuineness. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(E)'s file for readjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish required documents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documents, but the CIT(E) had not considered them before rejecting the application. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for readjudication after considering the evidence and providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal. This was done in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee a further opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, State Pollution Control Board, meets the tests laid down by the Supreme Court and falls within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, its income is exempt from taxation under Article 289.

The Tribunal found that the AO had subsequently rectified the assessment order to compute the assessee's income as Nil, but this rectification was not brought to the notice of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had wrongly observed that the assessee claimed deductions under Section 35(1)(ii)(iii).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the circumstances of financial distress and improper service of the assessment order. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication to ensure the assessee gets an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that a mere failure to deduct TDS, leading to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income for penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The expenses were neither held as unreasonable nor bogus.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s recording of facts to be erroneous, as the assessee was non-cooperative during assessment. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer and providing a hearing opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court and therefore, there was no delay. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to produce evidence before the AO, and the AO was permitted to draw adverse inferences in case of non-cooperation.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the intimation was unsupported as the return and Form 10B were filed timely and no errors were pointed out. For AY 2020-21, the CIT(A)'s finding about Form 10BB was erroneous, and the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiid).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the source of the cash gift in the hands of his father, who had sufficient funds from land compensation and prior withdrawals. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be provided with another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that while non-filing of the audit report within the due date might disentitle the assessee to exemption under Sections 11 & 12, it cannot lead to a 100% disallowance of expenditure in an intimation under Section 143(1). Such an intimation is erroneous if it makes adjustments not permissible under the law.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide details to the AO, it did submit relevant documents to the CIT(A). The Tribunal therefore set aside the issue of disallowance of expenses to the file of the AO for reconsideration, directing the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal found that the JCIT(A) had not followed up on the non-receipt of the remand report and had disposed of the appeal prematurely. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the JCIT(A) for readjudication after obtaining the remand report.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce necessary documents like the Tax Recovery Certificate (TRC) and Form 10F before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal. Therefore, the AO's order and the CIT(A)'s decision were not found to be erroneous.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the intimation was unsupported as the return and Form 10B were filed timely and no errors were pointed out. For AY 2020-21, the CIT(A)'s finding about Form 10BB was erroneous, and the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiid).

The Tribunal held that the Valuation Officer's report was submitted beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 142A(6) of the Act, rendering the assessment order unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted the AO's failure to follow up on the reference.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) arbitrarily rejected the AO's remand report, which confirmed the assessee's explanation. The CIT(A) should have sought further clarification or confronted the assessee instead of dismissing the report.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the assessee's claim if evidence of TDS deduction and deposit is provided.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the assessee's claim if they provide evidence of TDS deduction and deposit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the assessee's claim if they provide evidence of TDS deduction and deposit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with an effective opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of unexplained cash credits to the AO for re-examination, allowing the assessee to produce evidence and creditors. The adhoc disallowance on gunny bags was deleted as the assessee had shown income from sales exceeding the claimed expenses.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal memo was not signed by the assessee and the defect was not rectified despite notices. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not explained and no reasonable cause was shown. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed on account of the delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the assessee's claim if evidence of TDS deduction and deposit is provided.

The Tribunal held that for four parties, the amounts were treated as loans due to lack of business transactions and unproven creditworthiness. For the remaining six parties, the amounts were considered trade advances and the addition was deleted.

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 noted that the assessee had not been heard in the proceedings before the CIT(A). Therefore, both orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A), NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was invalid as it lacked proper application of mind and a speaking order, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. The appeal concerning the penalty was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was invalid as it lacked proper application of mind and a speaking order, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. The appeal concerning the penalty was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed orders without discussing the facts or issues, simply upholding the AO's order due to non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed orders without discussing the facts or issues, simply upholding the AO's order due to non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was invalid as it lacked proper application of mind and a speaking order, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. The appeal concerning the penalty was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was invalid as it lacked proper application of mind and a speaking order, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. The appeal concerning the penalty was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the CIT(A) for readjudication. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited within 60 days.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income before initiating penalty proceedings. The notice issued for penalty was also found to be vague.

The Tribunal upheld the AO's additions for unexplained cash credits under Section 68, finding the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties. The disallowance of miscellaneous expenses was also deemed reasonable.