ITAT Lucknow Judgments — July 2019

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 provide the assessee with a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified because the addition itself was not justified. This was based on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, which stated that if such deposits are made before the due date of filing the return, disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) cannot be made.

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 refix the appeal, give the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, and decide the appeal on merits after considering a condonation application.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify if the employees receiving credit facilities were members of the society and to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if they were.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was crucial to the case and had not been previously considered. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and relevant case laws.

The Tribunal found that the assessee admitted to some violations but argued not all payments were subject to TCS. Considering the assessee's willingness to pay taxes where defaults occurred and a request for another opportunity, the issue was remitted back.

The Tribunal found that the assessee admitted to some violations but argued not all payments were subject to TCS. Considering the assessee's willingness to pay taxes where defaults occurred and a request for another opportunity, the issue was remitted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was willing to pay taxes where defaults occurred and requested an opportunity to provide details. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh determination of tax liability.

The Tribunal found that the assessee admitted to some violations but argued not all payments were subject to TCS. Given the assessee's willingness to pay taxes where defaults occurred and a request for another opportunity, the issue was remitted back.

The Tribunal found that the assessee admitted to some violations but argued not all payments were subject to TCS. Considering the assessee's willingness to pay taxes on defaults and request for another opportunity, the matter was remitted.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly allowed relief under Section 11(1) as Form 10B was filed within the prescribed time. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision not to grant benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2) as Form 10 was filed beyond the due date.

The Tribunal held that a show-cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must be specific about the charge. Since the notice issued to the assessee was not specific, it was considered void ab initio, making the consequent penalty illegal and liable for deletion.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim the balance additional depreciation in the subsequent year, following a previous decision in its own case. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable and sufficient opportunity to present its case, and the CIT passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the order of the CIT was set aside to provide one more opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the assessee admitted to some violations but argued not all payments were subject to TCS. Considering the assessee's willingness to pay taxes on defaults and request for another opportunity, the matter was remitted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim the balance additional depreciation in the subsequent year, following a previous decision in its own case. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions.

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 noted that the assessee's grievance regarding the denial of accumulation benefit was resolved by the CIT(Exemptions) following CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal became infructuous.

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 a non-specific show cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The assessee must be clearly informed of the specific limb under which penalty proceedings are initiated to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee admitted to some violations but argued not all payments were subject to TCS. The assessee expressed willingness to pay taxes where defaults occurred and requested another opportunity.