ITAT Lucknow Judgments — January 2022

The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeals as they had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The Assessing Officer had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

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 The appeals were consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The Assessing Officer had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to direct the reopening of assessment for a previous year, as appeals are confined to the assessment year before them. The additions made by the AO were also found to be beyond the scope of limited scrutiny in some instances.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeals as they had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations regarding the WIP, and physical examination or DVO valuation was not feasible or necessary given the nature of the expenditure.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not comment on the charitable objects or the genuineness of the assessee's activities, which are crucial for granting registration. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the subsequent grant of 80G approval by the Department.

The tribunal decided that the order passed in one appeal would apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal due to identical facts and issues. No other changes were made to the original order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions as the AO failed to provide cogent material to disprove the assessee's claim. The AO's investigation was found to be deficient, and the assessee had provided documentary evidence and made payments through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the tax arrears were settled, the Department's appeal is liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal decided to correct minor errors in its previous order, such as punctuation, word usage, and grammatical mistakes. These corrections do not alter the substantive findings or the outcome of the appeals.

The Tribunal decided to correct minor errors in its previous order, such as punctuation, word usage, and grammatical mistakes. These corrections do not alter the substantive findings or the outcome of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that an order for full and final settlement of tax arrears had been passed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.