ITAT Lucknow Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal held that for the provisions of Section 206C to apply, the scrap sold must arise from manufacturing or mechanical working. Since the assessee was a trader and not a manufacturer, and the items sold were reusable products from ship breaking, they did not fall under the definition of scrap. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS.

The Tribunal held that for the provisions of Section 206C to apply, the scrap sold must arise from manufacturing or mechanical working. Since the assessee was a trader and not a manufacturer, and the items sold were reusable products from ship breaking, they did not fall under the definition of scrap. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS.

The Tribunal held that for the provisions of Section 206C to apply, the scrap sold must arise from manufacturing or mechanical working. Since the assessee was a trader and not a manufacturer, and the items sold were reusable products from ship breaking, they did not fall under the definition of scrap. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient opportunity of being heard as the notice was not properly served. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Exemption) was set aside to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

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

The Tribunal found that the two-day period given for compliance was insufficient and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside.

The Tribunal found 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 held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) did not adequately examine the charitable nature of the assessee's objects. The CIT rejected the application without establishing that the assessee was engaged in non-charitable activities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay based on the principle of judicial consistency and the plausible explanation provided by the assessee. The appeals should have been decided on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted additional documents to support its claim of charitable activities. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Exemptions) was set aside.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and did not decide 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) should have condoned the delay based on the principle of judicial consistency and the plausible explanation provided by the assessee. The appeals should have been decided on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing due to an oversight. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Exemptions) was set aside.