ITAT Lucknow Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that the addition for Rs. 5,00,000/- in ITA No. 28/Lkw/2022 required re-verification by the Assessing Officer. The additions for chit fund investments in ITA No. 28/Lkw/2022 and ITA No. 30/Lkw/2022 were reversed as the payments were out of known sources and bank accounts. The addition for gifts in ITA No. 29/Lkw/2022 was also reversed.

The Tribunal held that the addition for Rs. 5,00,000/- in ITA No. 28/Lkw/2022 required re-verification by the Assessing Officer. The additions for chit fund investments in ITA No. 28/Lkw/2022 and ITA No. 30/Lkw/2022 were reversed as the payments were out of known sources and bank accounts. The addition for gifts in ITA No. 29/Lkw/2022 was also reversed.

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assessee settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, since the assessee had settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

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since the assessee had settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the addition for Rs. 5,00,000/- in ITA No. 28/Lkw/2022 required re-verification by the Assessing Officer. The additions for chit fund investments in ITA No. 28/Lkw/2022 and ITA No. 30/Lkw/2022 were reversed as the payments were out of known sources and bank accounts. The addition for gifts in ITA No. 29/Lkw/2022 was also reversed.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee appears in subsequent proceedings and the assessment is completed under Section 143(3), any earlier default should be ignored, and no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) should be levied.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest was incorrect as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. It also held that the contribution to the Group Gratuity Scheme was an allowable expenditure. Furthermore, the addition for customer advances was deleted as sales against these advances were made in subsequent years.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to explain their case before the authorities below. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by not issuing fresh summons to the donors during remand proceedings and by drawing adverse inferences without proper verification of service. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the assessee's contentions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2012-13, upholding a partial disallowance of expenses due to lack of vouchers. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal remitted the disallowance of expenses to the AO for fresh verification and allowed the appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 15 lacs for advances, stating it was recorded in books and paid through banking channels.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2012-13, upholding a partial disallowance of expenses due to lack of vouchers. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal remitted the disallowance of expenses to the AO for fresh verification and allowed the appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 15 lacs for advances, stating it was recorded in books and paid through banking channels.

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

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 234E are applicable from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the late fee and interest levied for the period prior to this date were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 234E are applicable from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the late fee and interest levied for the period prior to this date were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 234E are applicable from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the late fee and interest levied for the period prior to this date were not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 234E are applicable from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the late fee and interest levied for the period prior to this date were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that initiating reassessment proceedings merely on the basis of cash deposits in a bank account, without any tangible material to suggest income escapement, is not sustainable. The Assessing Officer proceeded on a fallacious assumption that bank deposits automatically constitute undisclosed income.

The Tribunal found that the assessees did not produce books of account before any authority. While audit reports were filed, it was unclear if the maintained books (cash book and ledger) were sufficient for income computation. Therefore, the cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessees produce their books.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 234E are applicable from June 1, 2015, and not retrospectively. Therefore, the late fee and interest levied for the period prior to this date were not sustainable.

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

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, which relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were not retrospective.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided additional documents before it to support her claim of liquidation of business assets. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after considering these documents and submissions.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction because the notice under section 143(2) was issued by one Assessing Officer (DCIT) while the assessment order was passed by another (ITO) without a valid transfer order under section 127 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had substantial cash deposits accepted before the demonetization period in the same year, and her business (transport and agriculture) predominantly involves cash, the demonetization deposits should also be considered as business receipts. The addition was therefore unjustified.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on unsecured loans, used for advancing loans to other companies from which interest was earned, is a deductible expenditure under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was therefore not justified.

The Tribunal held that although the assessee initially failed to comply, subsequent compliance was made, and the assessment was completed. Following a precedent, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on unsecured loans, used for advancing loans to other companies from which interest was earned, is a deductible expenditure under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was therefore not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly admitted the additional evidence as the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings that the unsecured loans and unexplained investments were adequately explained by the evidence submitted, upholding the deletion of additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessees are eligible for exemption under Section 10(38) as they provided documentary evidence and the additions were based on third-party statements without cross-examination. The estimated commission addition was also deleted as it was made on presumptions.

The Tribunal held that the assessees are eligible for exemption under Section 10(38) as they provided documentary evidence and the additions were based on third-party statements without cross-examination. The estimated commission addition was also deleted as it was made on presumptions.

The Tribunal held that the assessees are eligible for exemption under Section 10(38) as they provided documentary evidence and the additions were based on third-party statements without cross-examination. The estimated commission addition was also deleted as it was made on presumptions.

The Tribunal held that the assessees are eligible for exemption under Section 10(38) as they provided documentary evidence and the additions were based on third-party statements without cross-examination. The estimated commission addition was also deleted as it was made on presumptions.