ITAT Lucknow Judgments — February 2019

The tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. The Circular is binding on the Department as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue in limine, without examining the merits. This decision was based on a CBDT circular which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue in limine, without examining the merits. This decision was based on a CBDT circular which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly allowed the exemption as the Section 12A registration was granted retrospectively and acknowledged by the AO in a remand report. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was also deleted as the AO failed to point out specific defects or unverified vouchers.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without deciding the appeal on merits and without giving a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without deciding the appeal on merits and without giving a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT (Exemptions) and restored the matter to his file. The CIT was directed to consider the application afresh after providing a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) has been held to be retrospective, making the disallowance unwarranted. Furthermore, the issues raised by the assessee regarding capitalization of expenses and amounts not being payable were debatable, thus not rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was deductible on hall charges paid to LDA as its income was exempt under Section 11. It also held that the interest on the housing loan was an allowable business expenditure as the property was used as a business asset.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of a proper opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s dismissal for non-prosecution was also questioned.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals before the ITAT if the tax effect is below Rs. 20,00,000. This circular is applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal had previously remitted the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Since the addition forming the basis of the penalty was set aside, the penalty itself no longer survives.

The Tribunal held that reopening a completed assessment based solely on an audit party's objection, when all relevant material was already before the Assessing Officer during the original assessment, constitutes a change of opinion and is unsustainable. The reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a specific mention of escaped income being Rs. 1 lakh or more in the reasons recorded renders the reassessment notice issued after four years invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the order passed are null and void ab initio.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to their non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to ensure natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the appeals were restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular is binding on the Departmental Authorities as per Section 268A(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed in limine without going into the merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, restoring the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to refix the appeal and decide it afresh after providing a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the appeals were restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the appeals were restored for fresh adjudication.