ITAT Lucknow Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. However, it noted that the CIT rejected the application without considering the amended Trust Deed/Memorandum of Association, which was submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the aggregate cash payments to a single party in a day exceeding Rs. 20,000/- clearly violated Section 40A(3), regardless of who made the individual payments. The reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. However, it noted that the CIT rejected the application without considering the amended Trust Deed/Memorandum of Association, which was submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB electronically is directory, not mandatory, and that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the issue of late filing of the return without issuing a show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee, including the pending writ petition and the impounding of books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of six months in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause shown. Regarding the disallowance of employee PF/ESI contributions, the matter was considered covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. The disallowance of cloth and uniform expenses was set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of six months in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of six months in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that appeals against penalty orders under Section 271FA lie with the CIT(A) as per Section 246A(1)(q) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeals filed directly with the ITAT were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that appeals against penalty orders under Section 271FA lie with the CIT(A) as per Section 246A(1)(q) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeals filed directly with the ITAT were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that belated payment of Employees' Contribution to PF, even if made before the due date of filing the return, is not allowable as a deduction. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of six months in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of six months in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of six months in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits.