ITAT Lucknow Judgments — August 2024

The ITAT dismissed the appeal as un-admitted due to the assessee's non-compliance and repeated adjournments. The assessee was given liberty to move for restoration with a condonation of delay petition.

The Tribunal held that the CPC erred in disallowing the Section 80P deduction at the processing stage under Section 143(1) for AY 2019-20, as the relevant amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) disallowing such claims for belated returns was not yet effective. Therefore, the intimation under Section 143(1) was quashed.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with necessary evidence. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the Assessing Officer's directions.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was done in the interest of substantial justice, acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance during the first appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of basic exemption, citing its own order for AY 2017-18 and CBDT Circular No. 320. The AO was directed to allow the basic exemption and not charge tax at MMR.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the case to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is granted one more opportunity to present their case and produce evidence regarding construction expenses.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness and restored the case to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case, with a caution against future non-compliance.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present her case on merits. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the ex-parte order of the NFAC, restored the appeal to the NFAC for a decision on merits. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for a hearing on merits, emphasizing the need for substantial justice. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions, failing which the NFAC could pass an ex-parte order.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, directing it to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the discrepancies in the dates of the audit reports. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation is covered in favour of the assessee by the Allahabad High Court's decision, and the issue of donations is also covered by previous orders in the assessee's own case. The cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the discrepancies in the dates of the audit reports. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the AO passed the assessment order hastily without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A) also passed a hasty order without considering the case laws relied upon by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order for sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete this amount, which was sustained on an ad-hoc basis.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Exemptions)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the objections raised. The Tribunal noted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus donations had been upheld by the appellate authority.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of explaining the source and nature of the unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE. The assessee also failed to appear before the lower authorities and the Tribunal.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine because it was barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was delayed by 53 days and the assessee had not filed any application for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Exemptions)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the objections raised. The Tribunal noted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus donations had been upheld by the appellate authority.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and failed to comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) by not passing a speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) because the assessee failed to appear and provide any justification or material before any of the authorities. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders passed.

Both parties confirmed that the Tribunal had already passed an order on June 13, 2018, in consequence of a High Court order. Therefore, no further action was required by the Tribunal at this juncture.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under Section 43B was well-reasoned and sustained. However, the CIT(A) had misinterpreted the earlier ITAT order regarding other additions, which should have also been restored to the AO for fresh decision.

Both parties confirmed that the Tribunal had already passed an order on June 13, 2018, in consequence of a High Court order. Therefore, no further action was required by the Tribunal at this juncture.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of basic exemption. The past history of the assessee, CBDT Circular No. 320, and ITAT Ahmedabad's decision support this view, as no member is entitled to any share of the income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal had already been disposed of by an earlier order dated 05/12/2017, as confirmed by both the assessee and the Revenue. Therefore, no further adjudication was required.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee by issuing notices at short intervals and not considering the adjournment request. The impugned order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.