Loading ITAT cases…
392 tribunal orders from the Lucknow bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 392 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted the gross receipts from Indian Oil Corporation but failed to explain the cash and cheque deposits. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the deposits and assess contract receipts based on profit.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of late payment of employee's PF contribution is generally decided against the assessee. However, since the assessee had already made a disallowance in its accounts and claimed a higher amount, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the amount already disallowed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence including confirmations, bank statements, and audited accounts of the lender. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted as the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were established.
The Tribunal held that the amounts in question were purchases of trade items and not expenses. Since no TDS is deductible on purchases, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted comprehensive details regarding agricultural income, landholdings, crops, sales, and expenses to the AO. The PCIT's revision order lacked specific findings on how the assessment order was erroneous or what further inquiries the AO should have conducted.
The Tribunal found that the exact status of the assessee for claiming exemption under Section 10(26AAB) was not clear. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a settlement order had been passed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the CIT (Exemptions). The assessee is directed to provide all relevant details and documentary evidence to substantiate its claim for registration.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is prospective and applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees cannot be charged for periods prior to this date. The appeals were allowed based on this finding.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is prospective and applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees cannot be charged for periods prior to this date. The appeals were allowed based on this finding.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous after obtaining registration. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a settlement order had been passed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the exact status of the assessee for claiming exemption under Section 10(26AAB) was not clear. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal found that the exact status of the assessee for claiming exemption under Section 10(26AAB) was not clear. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is prospective and applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees cannot be charged for periods prior to this date. The appeals were allowed based on this finding.
The Tribunal found that the exact status of the assessee for claiming exemption under Section 10(26AAB) was not clear. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is prospective and applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees cannot be charged for periods prior to this date. The appeals were allowed based on this finding.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the disallowance might be a double disallowance. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to verify the year-wise details of the amount and how it was suo moto disallowed by the assessee in prior years.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is prospective and applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees cannot be charged for periods prior to this date. The appeals were allowed based on this finding.