ITAT Allahabad Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that the Gujarat High Court's decision in 'Leena Jugalkishor Shah vs. ACIT' overruled the view that the property must be located in India for Section 54 deduction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction was confirmed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. Both issues, accrued KVP interest and the bank deposit, were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution as the assessee did not appear and seemed uninterested in pursuing the appeal.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear despite proper notice. The assessee may seek revival by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance.

The tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution as the assessee did not appear for the hearing. The assessee may seek revival by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) sustained additions without proper reasoning and that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity for hearing and failed to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be sustained on the entire addition as part of it was deleted and another part was set aside for fresh adjudication. However, penalty on the confirmed addition of Rs. 1 lakh is leviable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity for hearing and failed to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.