ITAT Cuttack Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for representation and submission of documents, but the assessee failed to comply. Despite this, the CIT(A) had discussed the issues on merits. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

For the quantum appeal (ITA No.538), issues are restored to the AO for physical verification of evidence, including the option to issue notices under Section 133(6). The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) (ITA No.541) is deleted, with liberty for the AO to reinitiate if concealment is proven. For the reopening assessment (ITA No.565), the assessment order and CIT(A) order are set aside for a de novo assessment as the original ground for reopening did not lead to an addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed its return for assessment year 2015-16 and an assessment order u/s.143(3) was passed. The AO had incorrectly stated that the return for the earlier year was not filed, leading to the disallowance of carry forward of loss.

The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, especially since no paper book was filed. Consequently, no evidence was available to rebut the findings of fact made by the CIT(A) and AO.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A is not leviable when the revised return filed in response to a search is accepted by the AO without additions. The penalty notice was also found to be vague, failing to specify the exact charge against the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the business license was in Nirmala Sheth's name and she had alleged fraud. Therefore, the income should be assessed substantively in Nirmala Sheth's hands. Consequently, her appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication, while Amal Sheth's appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the business license was in Nirmala Sheth's name and she had alleged fraud. Therefore, the income should be assessed substantively in Nirmala Sheth's hands. Consequently, her appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication, while Amal Sheth's appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the business license was in Nirmala Sheth's name and she had alleged fraud. Therefore, the income should be assessed substantively in Nirmala Sheth's hands. Consequently, her appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication, while Amal Sheth's appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the business license was in Nirmala Sheth's name and she had alleged fraud. Therefore, the income should be assessed substantively in Nirmala Sheth's hands. Consequently, her appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication, while Amal Sheth's appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the business license was in Nirmala Sheth's name and she had alleged fraud. Therefore, the income should be assessed substantively in Nirmala Sheth's hands. Consequently, her appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication, while Amal Sheth's appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal, considering the submissions, found merit in the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present evidence. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the submissions, found merit in the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present evidence. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were plausible and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeals were admitted for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were plausible and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeals were admitted for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were plausible and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeals were admitted for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were plausible and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeals were admitted for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were plausible and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeals were admitted for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were plausible and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeals were admitted for hearing.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A is not leviable when the revised return filed in response to a search is accepted by the AO without additions. The penalty notice was also found to be vague, failing to specify the exact charge against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A is not leviable when the revised return filed in response to a search is accepted by the AO without additions. The penalty notice was also found to be vague, failing to specify the exact charge against the assessee.

The assessee's representative did not appear for the hearing. The CIT DR appeared for the revenue and had no objection to the withdrawal petition filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a petition to withdraw the appeals and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's action of directing the AO to apply Section 69C instead of Section 37(1), when the AO had already taken a view under Section 37(1), amounts to a change of opinion, which is not permissible under Section 263. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal held that Section 10(46) of the Act does not mandate the filing of an audit report. Therefore, the intimation under Section 143(1) allowing the exemption was not erroneous. A notification issued by the CBDT cannot override the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were plausible and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeals were admitted for hearing.

The Tribunal held that Section 43B is not applicable to interest on government loans, citing a High Court decision. Therefore, the disallowance by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the business license was in Nirmala Sheth's name and she had alleged fraud. Therefore, the income should be assessed substantively in Nirmala Sheth's hands. Consequently, her appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication, while Amal Sheth's appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 are deemed to be show cause notices under Section 148A(b) of the new reassessment regime. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal, the notice and consequential assessment order are quashed.

The Tribunal held that when technicality is pitted against substantial justice, substantial justice should prevail. Since the additions on merits were deleted by the CIT(A), the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) had no basis to survive.

The Tribunal held that VAT should be excluded from the total turnover when estimating income at 8%. Regarding interest income, it was decided that it should be assessed under "income from other sources" and not as business income. The issue regarding the valuation of shares was restored to the AO for revaluation as per Rule 11UA.

The Tribunal restored the first two issues regarding unsecured loans and the mismatch between 26AS and P&L to the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present details and reconcile differences. The third issue concerning delayed payment of PF & ESI contributions was confirmed as it was squarely covered by a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal, considering the submissions, found merit in the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present evidence. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening the assessment were merely a copy-paste of the DDIT's report, indicating no independent application of mind by the AO. The reopening was found to be bad in law, following the principles laid down by the Odisha High Court.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursements made by Shri Surendra Kumar Panigrahi to the assessee for expenses incurred on behalf of Panigrahi, as evidenced by bank transactions and contract details, were not to be treated as the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs.48,50,000 was sourced from the assessee's withdrawal of Rs.1,03,00,000, thus deleting the addition. For the labour charges, it was held that since the amount was treated as income in the hands of Shri Banti Kumar Agarwal, the expenditure was genuine in the hands of the assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that Section 43B is not applicable to interest on government loans, citing a High Court decision. Therefore, the disallowance by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the revenue had not challenged the CIT(A)'s finding that the first proviso to section 147 was violated, as the AO failed to produce material facts concealed by the assessee. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay of 121 days and condoned it, citing the bona fide reasons provided by the assessee and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had paid taxes on the foreign income and disclosing it in the Indian return. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 23.08.2022 was barred by limitation by 12 days, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act was bad in law as it was issued without complying with the provisions of the first proviso to Section 143(1), which mandates that an intimation should be issued to the assessee before the final intimation. Therefore, the assessment was quashed.

The ITAT held that the delay in filing appeals was beyond the assessee's control, largely due to the transition to a faceless regime and staff shortages. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays.

The Tribunal noted that this appeal was a duplicate filing. The original appeal by the revenue in ITA No.464/CTK/2025 was already pending. Therefore, this appeal was dismissed as a duplicate filing.

The Tribunal found that there was an inordinate delay of 3789 days in filing the appeals, and the reasons provided by the assessee were not plausible. The Tribunal held that such excessive delays, especially those resulting from negligence or inaction, cannot be excused as they undermine the purpose of the law of limitation.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the assessee was a shell company or that it engaged in financial irregularities. The assessee's receipts were from legitimate contracts, channelled through banking, and from government organizations. The company also paid various taxes and statutory dues, and had contracts with government agencies, indicating its existence.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the assessee was a shell company or that it engaged in financial irregularities. The assessee's receipts were from legitimate contracts, channelled through banking, and from government organizations. The company also paid various taxes and statutory dues, and had contracts with government agencies, indicating its existence.

The ITAT held that the delay in filing appeals was beyond the assessee's control, largely due to the transition to a faceless regime and staff shortages. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the assessee had not made the prayer for reference to the DVO before the AO, and in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were barred by limitation by 04 days each. However, considering that the assessee had filed a condonation application supported by an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for the delay, and the Senior Departmental Representative did not object to the same, the Tribunal condoned the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the disposal of all five appeals on their merits. No specific findings on the substantive issues of the appeals were recorded in this order, as the focus was on the procedural aspect of delay condonation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed evidences before the AO, which were refused. In the interest of justice and to grant an opportunity of being heard, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee to produce fresh evidence.

The ITAT held that the delay in filing appeals was beyond the assessee's control, largely due to the transition to a faceless regime and staff shortages. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays.