ITAT restores case to CIT(A) as incorrect filing date led to faulty judgment in Emerald Mining Pvt. Ltd. tax dispute.
ITAT Cuttack rules replacement of gear boxes in Surface Furnace Kiln as current repairs under Section 31(1) for Sponge Tata Iron Ltd. Read the full judgment analysis.
Cuttack ITAT condones a 145-day delay in the Tirupati Prasad Sahu vs. ITO case due to emails going to spam. Case restored for merits adjudication.
ITAT Cuttack – Abani Pattanayak Vs ACIT- ITAT ruled that maintenance and electricity charges not in the form of deposits are excluded from property cost for computing LTCG
ITAT Cuttack held that claim of exemption of long term capital gains (LTCG), from sale of equity shares, under section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 allowable as requisite conditions satisfied.
ITAT Cuttack held that addition towards the unexplained investment for SBN deposits during demonetization period sustained in absence to establish source of the same without documentary evidences.
Manjulata Sahoo Vs PCIT (ITAT Cuttack) It was the submission that against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has filed appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court of Orissa and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa was pleased to admit the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.8 of 2021 vide order dated […]
Siddarthini Nanda Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) A perusal of the show cause notice as also the satisfaction recorded by the AO in the assessment order, clearly does not mention the specific notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act in respect of which non-compliance the penalty has been initiated. A perusal of the assessment order in all […]
Raghunath Jew School of Management Studies Vs ITO (Exemption) (ITAT Cuttack) The facts in the present appeals clearly show that the assessments have been done ex-parte on account of the fact that the books of accounts and bills & vouchers were not produced before the AO. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee […]
Penalty leviable u/s.271AAA was 10% of the concealed income whereas under section 271(1)(c), the penalty was leviable at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, therefore, the claim of AO that show cause notice had been issued under both under section 271AAA and section 271(1)(c) was not correct and it was not a typographical error.
