Loading ITAT cases…
235 tribunal orders from the Lucknow bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 235 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that since the outstanding GST amount was not debited to the profit & loss account, the disallowance under Section 43B was not warranted. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents where similar additions were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the date of handing over documents to the assessee's AO determines the 'search year' for the assessee. Since documents were handed over on 01.12.2017, the search year should be AY 2018-19, making AY 2016-17 fall within the preceding six years. The assessment framed under Section 143(3) without a Section 153C notice was deemed illegal and void.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide complete books of account and vouchers to the lower authorities. While acknowledging that disallowances without rejecting books are generally not permissible, the Tribunal found the assessee's lack of cooperation justified the lower authorities' actions to some extent.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which led to the penalty, were deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty itself did not survive and was consequently deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction over the assessee as the assessee's business was in Maharashtra, not Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the notice issued by the AO was deemed null and void.
The assessee submitted an application to withdraw the appeal as they had settled the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The Tribunal held that Labour Cess, when not debited to the profit and loss account and collected as a collecting agency for the government, should not be added to the income. It also held that interest earned on client funds, when credited to the respective client accounts as per government orders, is not the income of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Labour Cess, when not debited to the profit and loss account and collected as a collecting agency for the government, should not be added to the income. It also held that interest earned on client funds, when credited to the respective client accounts as per government orders, is not the income of the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a final settlement order was passed. The Revenue had no objection to the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a settlement order was passed. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had successfully settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee did not wish to press the grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that even if the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was valid, it would not have any tax impact because the assessee's business income was exempt under Section 10B. Therefore, the disallowance would only increase the exempt income.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act renders the appeal non-adjudicable. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal no longer survived for adjudication due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the Vivadse Vishwas Act provides for the vacation of appeals. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal no longer survived for adjudication due to the settlement under the Vivadse Vishwas Act. The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivadse Vishwas Act. The assessee retains the liberty to have the appeal restored if the settlement process is not concluded.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was issued. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that certificates under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme were issued to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals, which was permitted by the tribunal.
The tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had issued certificates under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee wished to withdraw the appeals based on this, and the tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that certificates under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme were issued to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals, and the tribunal permitted this.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The tribunal noted that certificates under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme were issued to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals, which was permitted by the tribunal.
The tribunal noted that certificates under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme were issued to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals, which was permitted by the tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the registration. The lease deed clearly stipulated the trust's entitlement to the fair market value of constructions upon termination, negating the CIT's concern about property transfer to a member. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including bank statements and books of account, which the CIT failed to consider.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that FGIET is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Assessing Officer allotted a PAN to FGIET using the registration certificate of RPA as proof of existence, thereby acknowledging them as one and the same entity. The status of FGIET was also marked as 'Association of Persons' in the PAN application. Furthermore, RPA, the parent society, had obtained 12A registration on November 1, 2010, and had no other institution apart from FGIET. RPA had not claimed any exemption separately and did not file its own income tax return until it obtained a separate PAN from assessment year 2015-16. The Tribunal also noted the consistency in granting exemption to FGIET from assessment year 2010-11 onwards, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow exemption to the assessee under Section 11. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the registration. The lease deed clearly stipulated the trust's entitlement to the fair market value of constructions upon termination, negating the CIT's concern about property transfer to a member. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including bank statements and books of account, which the CIT failed to consider.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s observation directing the Assessing Officer to take remedial measures was not justified, especially after allowing relief to the assessee. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal expunged this observation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s observation directing the Assessing Officer to take remedial measures was not justified, especially after allowing relief to the assessee. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal expunged this observation.
The Tribunal clarified that the respondent in the appeal is 'Pr. CIT (Central) Lucknow' and not 'CIT (Exemptions)'. This correction does not alter the substance of the original order.
The Tribunal noted that travelling expenses for spouses could be part of director remuneration and that disallowances under Section 14A require proof of expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The Tribunal found that the nexus between expenditure and exempt income was not established and that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds.