ITAT Lucknow Judgments — March 2019

The Tribunal held that a show cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must be specific regarding whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A non-specific notice is void ab initio, rendering the subsequent penalty illegal.

The Tribunal held that the surrender made by the assessee's father-in-law could be considered for investments in properties, but not for construction costs. Additions on account of low household expenses were upheld.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal without dealing with the issues on merit. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to his file for fresh adjudication on merit.

The Tribunal found that certain credits, particularly the Rs. 4 lakhs entry and entries related to asset purchases, required further factual verification. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

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 found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits and should have condoned the delay, as there was a reasonable cause. The CIT(A) also failed to ensure proper service of notices.

The Tribunal held that brokerage paid in relation to transactions in securities is not covered by Section 194H of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source on such payments, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the surrender made by the father-in-law could not be automatically set off against all investments, especially construction costs. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to recalculate additions considering the total surrender and Valuation Officer's reports, ignoring construction before/after the search.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the late filing. It held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity by the CIT(Exemption) before rejecting the application.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the additions. The assessee's arguments regarding fee structure, depreciation claim, substantiation of expenses, and the nature of interest expenditure were accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in uploading the tax audit report, attributing it to the advocate's failure and the complexities of e-filing. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be uninterested in pursuing the appeal. Following established case laws, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied the right to cross-examine Dr. P. Mahalingam, whose statement was used for the addition. This violated principles of natural justice, as the Assessing Officer has powers to enforce attendance for cross-examination.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiid) and that the basic exemption limit was not considered. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided a proper and sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard before passing an ex-parte order. The principles of natural justice require that parties be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Exemption) was set aside.

The Tribunal held 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 principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest paid on car loan to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether the recipient declared and paid tax on the interest. The issue of interest on building construction loan was also restored to the Assessing Officer to examine the distinction between 'extension' and 'expansion' of business.

The Tribunal held that Section 54G exemption is only applicable when an industrial undertaking is shifted from an urban area to a non-urban area. Selling an asset in a non-urban area and reinvesting in another non-urban area does not meet this primary condition.

The Tribunal held that the surrender made by the father-in-law could not be automatically set off against all investments, especially construction costs. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to recalculate additions considering the total surrender and Valuation Officer's reports, ignoring construction before/after the search.

The Tribunal held that the surrender made by the father-in-law could not be automatically set off against all investments, especially construction costs. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to recalculate additions considering the total surrender and Valuation Officer's reports, ignoring construction before/after the search.

The Tribunal held that the surrender made by the father-in-law could not be automatically set off against all investments, especially construction costs. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to recalculate additions considering the total surrender and Valuation Officer's reports, ignoring construction before/after the search.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied the right to cross-examine Dr. P. Mahalingam, whose statement was used for the addition. This violated principles of natural justice, as the Assessing Officer has powers to enforce attendance for cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a copy of the second remand report. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was remitted back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that a show cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must be specific regarding whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A non-specific notice is void ab initio, rendering the subsequent penalty illegal.

The Tribunal held that a show cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must be specific regarding whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A non-specific notice is void ab initio, rendering the subsequent penalty illegal.

The Tribunal held that a show cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must be specific regarding whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A non-specific notice is void ab initio, rendering the subsequent penalty illegal.

The Tribunal held that the surrender made by the father-in-law could not be automatically set off against all investments, especially construction costs. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to recalculate additions considering the total surrender and Valuation Officer's reports, ignoring construction before/after the search.

The Tribunal held that the surrender made by the father-in-law could not be automatically set off against all investments, especially construction costs. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to recalculate additions considering the total surrender and Valuation Officer's reports, ignoring construction before/after the search.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a show cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must be specific about the charge to comply with the principles of natural justice. Since the notice was not specific, the penalty levied was deemed bad in law.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.