Loading ITAT cases…
292 tribunal orders from the Lucknow bench in 2019.
Showing 40 of 292 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to ensure principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding the appeal on merit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that a show cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must be specific about the limb of the charge being invoked. Since the notice was not specific, it was void ab initio, making the consequent penalty illegal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Exemptions) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances monetary limits for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals as well as future appeals. The circular is to be read in conjunction with earlier circulars, and its provision for retrospective application remains intact.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that once an institution is registered under Section 12AA, and this registration has not been revoked, the CIT(Exemption) cannot reject an application for 80G approval by re-examining the genuineness of activities. The CIT's role in 80G approval is not to act as an Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions as the additional evidence was admitted after considering the AO's remand report, and the AO himself found the comparable rates submitted by the assessee to be comparable on facts.
The Tribunal held that a non-specific show-cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is void ab initio. Consequently, any penalty levied based on such a notice is illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in limine. This was based on the CBDT Circular which is binding on the Departmental Authorities, and the tax effect being below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to provide a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment order passed without a fresh notice under Section 148 by the jurisdictional AO, after the case was transferred from an incompetent officer, is invalid. The participation of the assessee or the transfer of the case does not confer jurisdiction or waive the requirement of a valid notice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to provide a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The penalty order was also found to be barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(a).
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The penalty order was also found to be barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(a).
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to refix the appeal and decide it afresh after giving a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without giving the assessee a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The ITAT 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.
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 assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to provide a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution as the assessee did not appear for the hearing and seemed uninterested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowances were made without proper examination of facts and evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to toll business expenses, NHAI payments, and salary/wages was upheld, finding no infirmity in the lower appellate authority's reasoning.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies only to sums credited in the books of account. Since the assessee was not maintaining books of account, the addition made under Section 68 based on bank statement entries was not sustainable.
The tribunal held that since the assessee failed to appear for the hearing despite receiving notice, the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee can seek revival by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide the assessee's ground regarding the denial of cross-examination opportunities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the business of the assessee, which involved purchase and sale of shares, was speculative in nature as per the Explanation to Section 73. However, it found that the brought forward losses were correctly set off against speculative business income of the current year, and therefore, there was no mistake apparent from the record.