ITAT Lucknow Judgments — February 2022

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

ITA 153/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its previous orders in similar cases where the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Assessing Officer had not brought on record any adverse evidence specifically against the assessee to prove that the capital gain was not genuine.

HELP U WELFARE SOCIETY,VARANASI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW

ITA 738/LKW/2019[NA]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2022Withdrawn

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 The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW vs M/S. HARROW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BAREILLY

ITA 731/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeal. Since the assessee had opted for and deposited tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous.

M/S. HARROW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BAREILLY vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW

ITA 732/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeal. Since the assessee had opted for and deposited tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous.

SHRI VISHNU KUMAR,BAREILLY vs I.T.O. -2(3), BAREILLY

ITA 366/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The tribunal upheld the addition sustained by the CIT(A) regarding agricultural income, finding no justification for the assessee's claim. However, the addition related to bank deposits was deleted, as the deposits were covered by the opening cash in hand.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR vs SHRI MANISH MAHESHWARI, KANPUR

ITA 55/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal became infructuous.

SMT. PURNIMA AGARWAL,LUCKNOW vs CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), LUCKNOW

ITA 255/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the tax liability under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee became infructuous.

M/S JAMA CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs DYT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

ITA 449/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an affidavit denying acceptance of the remand and the DR had no objection to remitting the matter. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR vs SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI, KANPUR

ITA 56/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited the due tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal became infructuous.

M/S BASTI WINE CO. (ENGLISH),KANPUR vs ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

ITA 683/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary investigations and the assessee had provided plausible explanations. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and the conditions for initiating action under Section 263 were not met.

VINAYAK SHREE ROYAL TECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

ITA 291/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal due to obtaining a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection.