ITAT Cuttack Judgments — July 2026

SAMBALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,SAMBALPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

ITA 592/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2026AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal, to ensure natural justice, decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to furnish audited accounts by a Chartered Accountant. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 599/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a consistent accounting practice of creating provisions for expenses like audit fees and contractor payments, which were paid in subsequent years. Excess provisions were reversed and offered to tax. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance and CIT(A)'s confirmation to be incorrect.

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 580/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a consistent accounting practice of creating provisions for expenses like audit fees and contractor payments, which were paid in subsequent years. Excess provisions were reversed and offered to tax. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance and CIT(A)'s confirmation to be incorrect.

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 581/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2026AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a consistent accounting practice of creating provisions for expenses like audit fees and contractor payments, which were paid in subsequent years. Excess provisions were reversed and offered to tax. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance and CIT(A)'s confirmation to be incorrect.

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 587/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2026AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a consistent accounting practice of creating provisions for expenses like audit fees and contractor payments, which were paid in subsequent years. Excess provisions were reversed and offered to tax. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance and CIT(A)'s confirmation to be incorrect.