ITAT Lucknow Judgments — June 2022

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

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

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 10,00,000 deposit was part of the cash declared under IDS 2016 and had already been subjected to tax. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for keeping the cash aside for family expenses plausible, especially given regular withdrawals for household needs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to sufficient cause. Subsequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to sufficient cause. Subsequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without detailing reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. Therefore, the matter was remitted for a fresh decision on merit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without discussing the reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature and that the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect. It also found that certain amounts transferred to the IDRF account were not taxable in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature and that the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect. It also found that certain amounts transferred to the IDRF account were not taxable in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's case required readjudication. The AO was directed to re-examine the issue of bank deposits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the auditor's certificate admitting a software fault and the revised audit report clearly indicated that ESI/PF provisions were not applicable. The lower authorities erred in not considering the submitted evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature and that the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect. It also found that certain amounts transferred to the IDRF account were not taxable in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). It also found that benefits provided to employees did not violate Section 13(3) as they were not managers or specified persons.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). It also found that benefits provided to employees did not violate Section 13(3) as they were not managers or specified persons.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). It also found that benefits provided to employees did not violate Section 13(3) as they were not managers or specified persons.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). It also found that benefits provided to employees did not violate Section 13(3) as they were not managers or specified persons.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). It also found that benefits provided to employees did not violate Section 13(3) as they were not managers or specified persons.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). It also found that benefits provided to employees did not violate Section 13(3) as they were not managers or specified persons.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). It also found that benefits provided to employees did not violate Section 13(3) as they were not managers or specified persons.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). It also found that benefits provided to employees did not violate Section 13(3) as they were not managers or specified persons.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeal. However, due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to revised CBDT instructions. However, since the assessee settled the tax arrears under the Vivad se Viswas Scheme, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal, upon considering the assessee's request and the absence of objection from the Revenue, permitted the withdrawal of all the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and a final settlement order was passed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the gifts were admittedly received in the previous year 2014-15, which falls under AY 2015-16. Therefore, the addition made in AY 2017-18 for gifts received in AY 2015-16 was incorrect. The grounds taken by the assessee were accepted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of objections raised by the assessee against reassessment proceedings by a separate speaking order, as per the Supreme Court ruling in GKN Driveshafts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO. Since this was not done, the reassessment notice and subsequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the reopening under Section 148 was not sustainable on the grounds raised by the assessee. However, considering the additional evidence, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by previous judgments of the Tribunal which allowed deduction for late deposit of employee contributions if made before the return filing due date. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective.

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 disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the entire deposits in the bank account cannot be taxed. Considering the pattern of deposits and withdrawals, only the peak credit amount should be considered as income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and a settlement order had been passed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding the reason plausible. However, since the assessee opted for the Vivad se Viswas Scheme and a final settlement order was passed, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the matter required reconsideration at the Assessing Officer's level. It was decided that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case, as the assessment was completed ex-parte and the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity for evidence submission.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the creditors had confirmed the transactions, payments were made through banking channels, and relevant documents like VAT returns and invoices were produced. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowance on expenses, noting the AO's ad-hoc approach.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, considering the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department's application to withdraw the appeal, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.