ITAT Cuttack held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed since assessee is entitled for exemption u/s. 11 and hence twin conditions are not satisfied in as much as there is no loss of revenue.
ITAT Cuttack rules no delay in appeal filing under COVID-19 limitation extension. Case remanded to Assessing Officer for readjudication and fresh evidence review.
ITAT Cuttack dismisses revenue’s appeal, upholding CIT(A)’s decision to delete ₹3.08 crore penalty as the underlying quantum addition no longer exists.
Bibekananda Pradhan appeals against CIT(A)’s order; ITAT finds cash deposits during demonetization reasonable, deletes ₹16,80,000 addition.
ITAT Cuttack held that AO wrongly allowed the set off of brought forward loss and accordingly order of AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act rightly invoked.
As per AO, Shri Birat Chandra Dagara was one of the partner of the assessee firm and had owned the mining lease and submitted the details as per which the assessee was found indulged in the illegal production of iron ore.
ITAT Cuttack held that difference between the sales declared in the profit and loss account and as per the cash book entire added by PCIT without providing sufficient opportunity to reconcile the same. Thus, AO directed to examine the issue.
ITAT Cuttack remands Sitaram Fruits Co. case to AO for fresh review due to non-receipt of notices and disputed cash payments. Appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Cuttack allows restoration of Harichandanpur LAMPS appeal due to non-compliance issues, directing CIT(A) to reconsider with an opportunity to the assessee.
ITAT restores case to CIT(A) as incorrect filing date led to faulty judgment in Emerald Mining Pvt. Ltd. tax dispute.
