ITAT Lucknow Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a settlement order had been passed. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the assessee settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Exemption) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The grounds of appeal were not pressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections by a speaking order, as mandated by the GKN Driveshafts case, renders the reassessment proceedings void. Consequently, the reassessment notice and the assessment order are quashed.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of Section 13(3) as benefits extended to employees are not covered. It also ruled that amounts transferred to the Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) were not taxable in the assessee's hands. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of Section 13(3) as benefits extended to employees are not covered. It also ruled that amounts transferred to the Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) were not taxable in the assessee's hands. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) is unsustainable in law and quashed it. The reasoning was based on the principle that when proceedings are initiated by a higher authority (DCIT issuing the notice under section 143(2)), the assessment must be completed by that authority or an authority of equal or higher rank. The assessment cannot be completed by a subordinate authority (ACIT) without a proper transfer of jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Allahadad Tannery, Berger Paints Ltd. vs. ACIT, and Valvoline Cummins Ltd. vs. DCIT. It was emphasized that concurrent jurisdiction means two authorities have equal powers, but the work cannot be divided; one authority must conclude the exercise of power. Since the DCIT applied his mind by issuing the notice, the ACIT, being junior, could not complete the assessment. Consequently, the assessment order and all subsequent proceedings were quashed as infructuous. The remaining grounds of appeal were not decided as they became infructuous due to the quashing of the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of Section 13(3) as benefits extended to employees are not covered. It also ruled that amounts transferred to the Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) were not taxable in the assessee's hands. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of Section 13(3) as benefits extended to employees are not covered. It also ruled that amounts transferred to the Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) were not taxable in the assessee's hands. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of Section 13(3) as benefits extended to employees are not covered. It also ruled that amounts transferred to the Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) were not taxable in the assessee's hands. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that since the deposits were made before the filing of the return of income, and relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sagun Foundry Pvt. Ltd., the addition sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESIC and EPF paid after the due date but before the filing of the return is not justified, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Tribunal also held that no further addition for donation was justified as the assessee had already offered it to tax.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after affording adequate opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence and conducted necessary inquiries through the remand report. The Assessing Officer's verification confirmed the genuineness of the donors, and thus the addition was rightly deleted.