ITAT Lucknow Judgments — May 2019

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the owner of the property and it was commercial in nature, thus not meeting the conditions for income from house property under Section 22. The addition made as income from house property was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (share capital and reserves) to cover the interest-free advances. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was unjustified as the advances were not made from borrowed funds.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not appear despite having knowledge of the hearing date, they were not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the CIT rejected the application without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and present its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to interest income on clients' unutilized funds and an amount shown as income in a subsequent year. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding prior period expenses and income wrongly credited in a previous year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to interest income on clients' unutilized funds and an amount shown as income in a subsequent year. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding prior period expenses and income wrongly credited in a previous year.

The Tribunal found that the addition under Section 41(1) was made without proper consideration of creditor accounts and subsequent payments. Regarding ad-hoc disallowances, the Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to produce books of account for verification.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee disclosed the transaction in its balance sheet and the issue of deemed dividend was debatable, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside to provide a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside to provide a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside to ensure principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid was not penal in nature as it was in accordance with the contractual terms with Indian Railways. It also clarified that Indian Railways is not an MSME, and the assessee's argument regarding MSME status was misapplied by the lower authorities.

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 natural justice.

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.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid was not penal in nature as it was in accordance with the contractual terms with Indian Railways. It also clarified that Indian Railways is not an MSME, and the assessee's argument regarding MSME status was misapplied by the lower authorities.

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

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was not specific regarding the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Consequently, the penalty levied was deemed bad in law and liable for deletion.

The Tribunal held 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 to allow the assessee a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessee's income by directing a further disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) without providing an opportunity of being heard or issuing a notice of enhancement. The Tribunal allowed the appeal against this enhancement.

The Tribunal held that the delay in responding to the notice was due to reasonable circumstances explained by the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied solely for the delay was not justifiable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving a proper opportunity to be heard and without deciding the appeal on merits. Therefore, the order was set aside to provide a fresh opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte 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 ITAT held that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order was set aside to provide the assessee with a fresh hearing on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper service of notice and without deciding the appeal on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessee's income by directing a further disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) without providing an opportunity of being heard or issuing a notice of enhancement. The Tribunal allowed the appeal against this enhancement.