ITAT Lucknow Judgments — April 2022

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

ITA 216/LKW/2019[1999-2000]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2022AY 1999-2000Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited the tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form No. 5. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals became infructuous.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

ITA 220/LKW/2019[1997-98]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2022AY 1997-98Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited the tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form No. 5. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals became infructuous.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

ITA 215/LKW/2019[1995-96]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2022AY 1995-96Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited the tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form No. 5. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals became infructuous.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

ITA 221/LKW/2019[1998-99]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2022AY 1998-99Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited the tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form No. 5. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals became infructuous.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(5), KANPUR vs SMT. USHA TULSIYAN, KANPUR

ITA 118/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited the due amount under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, leading to the issuance of certificates. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were rendered infructuous.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

ITA 214/LKW/2019[1990-91]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2022AY 1990-91Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited the tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form No. 5. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals became infructuous.

STATE BANK OF INDIA,KANPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

ITA 304/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer raised demands for non-deduction of TDS on LTC for foreign visits, stating exemption under Section 10(5) is only for expenditure incurred in India. The Tribunal referred to a Mumbai Tribunal order which allowed relief to the assessee in similar circumstances.

SHRI HARIDWAR PRASAD JAISWAL,BASTI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, BASTI

ITA 560/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide evidence of the assessment order being passed under Section 143(3) and that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) for ex-parte orders. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

RSV INFRA POWER PVT LTD,LUCKNOW vs ASSESSING OFFICER, RANGE 3(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

ITA 128/LKW/2021[2017-2018]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2017-2018Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition of service tax was incorrect as it was not routed through the profit and loss account, and therefore not disallowable under Section 43B. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had already added back interest on service tax and EPF in its computation of income.

M/S PREMIER CAR SALES LTD,HAZRATGANG vs THE ACIT -5, LUCKNOW NEW

ITA 1/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, relying on High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal noted that employee contributions are distinct from employer contributions and that late deposit by employers unjustly enriches them.

M/S SINGHAL CONCAST PVT. LTD,LUCKNOW vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-1, LUCKNOW

ITA 10/LKW/2022[2015-2016]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2015-2016Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a trader and not a manufacturer, was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of scrap. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments where similar cases were decided in favor of the assessee.

STATE BANK OF INDIA,KANPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

ITA 305/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer raised demands for non-deduction of TDS on LTC for foreign visits, stating exemption under Section 10(5) is only for expenditure incurred in India. The Tribunal referred to a Mumbai Tribunal order which allowed relief to the assessee in similar circumstances.

STATE BANK OF INDIA, FUND SETTLEMENT OFFICE,KANPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-II, KANPUR

ITA 22/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer raised demands for non-deduction of TDS on LTC for foreign visits, stating exemption under Section 10(5) is only for expenditure incurred in India. The Tribunal referred to a Mumbai Tribunal order which allowed relief to the assessee in similar circumstances.

SHRI SHER ALI JAFRI,BAREILLY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), BAREILLY

ITA 719/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, as the DR had no objection. Recognizing that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding on merits, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

MR. SHITIJ DHAWAN,KANPUR vs THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SPECIAL RANGE

ITA 137/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESIC and EPF, deposited before the filing of the return, is not justified. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and do not affect the current assessment year.

S.B.I ACCOUNTS & ADMIN OFFICE,KANPUR vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

ITA 74/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the delay of five days was not significant and the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

S.B.I H.R SECTION (ADMIN OFFICE),KANPUR vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

ITA 75/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the delay of five days was not significant and the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

S.B.I RBO III (ADMIN OFFICE),KANPUR vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

ITA 76/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer raised demands for non-deduction of TDS on LTC for foreign visits, stating exemption under Section 10(5) is only for expenditure incurred in India. The Tribunal referred to a Mumbai Tribunal order which allowed relief to the assessee in similar circumstances.

STATE HEALTH SOCIETY OF UTTAR PRADESH,LUCKNOW vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW

ITA 179/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

M/S MAHAVIR PAINTS AND ADHESIVES PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(3), KANPUR

ITA 20/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision which relied on the Supreme Court's ruling. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective and did not affect the current assessment year.

NAVNIRMAN CHARITRA PRAKASH SEVA SAMITI,GONDA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW

ITA 711/LKW/2019[NA]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022Remanded

The ITAT held that since the assessee already possessed a valid and continuing Section 12AA registration, its activities were deemed charitable. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for re-adjudication of the Section 80G(5) application, emphasizing that only the objects of the trust need to be examined for 80G approval.

M/S PREMIER CAR SALES LTD,HAZRATGANJ vs THE ACIT -5, LUCKNOW NEW

ITA 2/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESIC and EPF, when deposited before the filing of the return, is not justified. The judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT was relied upon.

MAA SIDDHIDATRI SEVA SAMITI,LUCKNOW vs ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

ITA 80/LKW/2021[2017-2018]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2017-2018Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made a general observation without specifying defects in the assessee's submissions, making the sustained addition unsustainable. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

SUNNY KAPOOR,BAREILLY vs ITO-2(2), BAREILLY NEW

ITA 74/LKW/2021[2017-2018]Status: Disposed11 Apr 2022AY 2017-2018Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable as the cash deposits were recorded in the assessee's books of account. Therefore, the assessment order invoking Section 69A was quashed.

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SINGH,LUCKNOW vs ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW

ITA 354/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- for household expenses, as the assessee had already accounted for Rs. 2,92,872/- for such expenses. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deleted.

KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD.,PILIBHIT vs ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY

ITA 776/LKW/2016[2008-09]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2022AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions on several issues, particularly regarding the inclusion of excise duty in stock valuation and the assessment of bagasse production. The Tribunal decided to set aside these issues for re-adjudication by the CIT(A).

KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD.,PILIBHIT vs ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY

ITA 775/LKW/2016[2007-08]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions on several issues, particularly regarding the inclusion of excise duty in stock valuation and the assessment of bagasse production. The Tribunal decided to set aside these issues for re-adjudication by the CIT(A).

KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD.,PILIBHIT vs ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY

ITA 774/LKW/2016[2006-07]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2022AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions on several issues, particularly regarding the inclusion of excise duty in stock valuation and the assessment of bagasse production. The Tribunal decided to set aside these issues for re-adjudication by the CIT(A).

RAMESHWAR RAI,BAREILLY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, BAREILLY

ITA 75/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: Disposed6 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, which relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective and did not affect the current assessment year.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

ITA 701/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 Apr 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing sufficient evidence for the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans. The survey admission alone, without corroborating material, was insufficient for the addition. The report from the DDIT (Inv) was also found to be vague and not obtained in accordance with law.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

ITA 702/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Apr 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing sufficient evidence for the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans. The survey admission alone, without corroborating material, was insufficient for the addition. The report from the DDIT (Inv) was also found to be vague and not obtained in accordance with law.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

ITA 582/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Apr 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing sufficient evidence for the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans. The survey admission alone, without corroborating material, was insufficient for the addition. The report from the DDIT (Inv) was also found to be vague and not obtained in accordance with law.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

ITA 703/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: Disposed6 Apr 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing sufficient evidence for the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans. The survey admission alone, without corroborating material, was insufficient for the addition. The report from the DDIT (Inv) was also found to be vague and not obtained in accordance with law.

ULTRA VALUE,LUCKNOW vs ITO (1)(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

ITA 109/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: Disposed6 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, which relied on the Supreme Court's decision. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not retrospective for the assessment year in question.

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

ITA 656/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of Section 13(3) and was eligible for exemption under Section 11. Amounts transferred to the Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) were also held to be not taxable in the assessee's hands.

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

ITA 665/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of Section 13(3) and was eligible for exemption under Section 11. Amounts transferred to the Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) were also held to be not taxable in the assessee's hands.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), KANPUR vs SHRI ABHISHEK AGARWAL, KANPUR

ITA 85/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2022AY 2015-16Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and tax arrears were settled. The Revenue's appeals were therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

JAGMINI MICRO KNIT PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs DCIT 2(1)(1), KANPUR

ITA 98/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which relied on the Supreme Court's judgment. The amendment by Finance Act 2021 was prospective and did not apply to the assessment year in question.

DESH BHARTI PUBLIC SCHOOL SAMITI,LUCKNOW vs AO EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

ITA 9/LKW/2022[2014-2015]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2022AY 2014-2015Allowed

The Tribunal held that the mistake in claiming exemption under the wrong section was an inadvertent human error, especially since the assessee had obtained 12A registration and filed the required Form-10B. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption under section 12A.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), KANPUR vs M/S. ADITYA AGARWAL, HUF, KANPUR

ITA 86/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2022AY 2015-16Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and tax arrears were settled. The Revenue's appeals were therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

M/S. HARI KISHAN SOMANICHARITABLE TRUST,KANPUR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

ITA 159/LKW/2018[2018-19]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) had rejected the application without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce the required documents. The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted a detailed reply and requested further time to furnish the remaining documents.

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

ITA 666/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of Section 13(3) and was eligible for exemption under Section 11. Amounts transferred to the Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) were also held to be not taxable in the assessee's hands.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), KANPUR vs SHRI ANKIT AGARWAL, KANPUR

ITA 87/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2022AY 2015-16Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and tax arrears were settled. The Revenue's appeals were therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

THE SUB-REGISTRAR,KUSHINAGAR vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I & CI), LUCKNOW

ITA 241/LKW/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that an appeal against a penalty levied under Section 271FA is maintainable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A(1)(q) of the IT Act, as Section 271FA falls under Chapter XXI. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), KANPUR vs SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI, KANPUR

ITA 84/LKW/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2022AY 2010-11Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and tax arrears were settled. The Revenue's appeals were therefore dismissed as withdrawn.