ITAT Lucknow Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issues regarding the additions were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the tax disputes were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the tax disputes were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that Rs. 39,500 was from cash in hand and the total deposit of Rs. 5,39,500 was part of business turnover. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on doubt and ignored crucial evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in calculating sales on a hypothetical basis and making additions without rejecting the books of account or pointing out deficiencies. The addition was considered unsustainable as it amounted to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was introduced effective from 01.04.2014, and the transaction occurred on 01.08.2012. It also noted that the assessee paid consideration of Rs. 6,00,000, contradicting the 'without consideration' premise. Therefore, the addition was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of Rs. 1,36,00,000 by the CIT(A) was justified as the assessee's business involved cash receipts from customers, which were duly accounted for and remitted. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of the sustained addition of Rs. 5,78,000, considering it as reasonable past savings.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of Rs. 1,36,00,000 by the CIT(A) was justified as the assessee's business involved cash receipts from customers, which were duly accounted for and remitted. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of the sustained addition of Rs. 5,78,000, considering it as reasonable past savings.

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the delay was condoned. The appeal was to be admitted and decided on merits.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and condone any delay.

The ITAT, finding that relevant materials were not available, restored specific issues regarding concessions for in-house pathology tests and margins for free/concessional tests to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erroneously observed that the assessee had not made any submissions for condoning the delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed him to decide the appeal after considering the assessee's application for condonation of delay and adjudicate on merits if the delay is condoned.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, directing them to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and decide the appeal on merits if the delay is condoned.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the case to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The assessee is directed to produce the admitted evidence before the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it due to the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consigned to record, with liberty to approach the Tribunal again if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is not accepted.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC order was ex-parte and the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the AO, violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the representatives of both the assessee and the revenue agreed on the course of action. The assessee's primary contention was that the CIT(A) had passed the order without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Revenue did not object to this submission. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the disputed issue of the addition of Rs. 5,47,532/- back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a de novo order on this issue in accordance with the law, after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the addition itself, as the matter was being remanded for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence to support their claim regarding the property purchase prices and valuations.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the Rs. 14,05,000 addition back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was done to allow the AO to consider all aspects of the case, including the other issue already restored.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee. This was agreed upon by both parties due to gaps in the factual matrix.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the appeal summarily. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) who had deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue failed to present any material to assail the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn and the assessee's cross-objection as infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the matter required factual verification by the Assessing Officer regarding the alleged typographical mistake in the tax audit report concerning the due date of PF contribution deposit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel submitted that the dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal. A letter dated 06.12.2024, along with Form No. 2, was placed on record, confirming the assessee's election to settle the dispute under the scheme and her intention to withdraw the appeal. The Learned Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that while cash deposits were considered, debit entries and related transactions were not independently verified by the lower authorities. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that while the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee was not allowable as it was excessive, it was not a case where no expenditure was incurred towards earning interest income. The disallowance was restricted to the extent of interest paid in excess of interest received from the companies.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the grounds to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional evidence. Considering the assessee's circumstances and the need for substantial justice, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was ex-parte and that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to give the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and to be heard on merits. The Tribunal emphasized substantial justice and a liberal approach to condoning delays.

The Tribunal restored the case to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present her case and produce supporting documents. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the AO's directions to avoid an ex-parte order.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without passing a speaking order on merits. The matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing a new order.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, deeming it cryptic and non-speaking. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer to consider the available records and allow brought forward losses in accordance with law. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted the substantial delay and the absence of the assessee's representative. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present his case and evidence regarding the bank deposits. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, in the interest of substantial justice, restored the appeal to the NFAC for a fresh hearing on merits. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the case to the AO. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present evidence regarding the disputed amount.

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to telephone expenses, car running and maintenance, and travelling and conveyance, finding no material to support the AO's ad-hoc disallowances. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the repair and maintenance expense disallowance, agreeing it was revenue expenditure. The remaining grounds were not detailed in the provided excerpt but the final order dismissed both the appeal and the cross-objection.

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer to consider the available records and allow brought forward losses in accordance with law. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, even if the assessee fails to appear. Dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without considering the merits was erroneous.

The Tribunal decided some issues in favour of the assessee by following its own previous order for AY 2012-13. However, one issue regarding disallowance under Section 40A(ia) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to a non-speaking order.