ITAT Lucknow Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary investigations and the assessee had provided plausible explanations during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous, and the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT held that an order passed by the CIT(A) on a deceased person is null and void. The tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to pass a fresh order after bringing the legal heirs on record and providing them an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against quantum additions, finding that the issue of disallowing salary and interest to partners was already confirmed by a previous ITAT order. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when books of account are rejected and income is estimated on a Net Profit ratio basis.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were already decided in its favour by previous Tribunal orders, including those upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal confirmed that the assessee's activities fall under 'preservation of environment' as per Section 2(15).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against quantum additions, finding that the issue of disallowing salary and interest to partners was already confirmed by a previous ITAT order. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when books of account are rejected and income is estimated on a Net Profit ratio basis.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make an addition on an issue other than the one which formed the basis for reopening the assessment under Section 147, unless it is a fresh income that comes to notice during proceedings. Since the addition was on GP ratio and not cash deposits, it was not permissible.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's observation that no explanation was furnished was incorrect, as a cash flow statement and lender confirmations were provided. However, minor discrepancies existed in the documentation.

The Tribunal found it unfair to use the valuation of one property as the cost of acquisition for capital gains calculation. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had obtained certificates for full and final settlement of tax arrears. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had settled the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had obtained certificates for full and final settlement of tax arrears. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had obtained certificates for full and final settlement of tax arrears. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had settled the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had obtained certificates for full and final settlement of tax arrears. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had obtained certificates for full and final settlement of tax arrears. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had obtained certificates for full and final settlement of tax arrears. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10 was condoned by the CIT(Exemptions) under Section 119(2)(b), making the AO's addition infructuous. The delay in filing Form 10B was also considered condoned by CBDT circular.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was not willing to contest it further. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals as well. The circular is to be read in conjunction with previous circulars and its provisions for withdrawal of pending appeals remain intact.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.