ITAT Lucknow Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that grants received for specific purposes, like the VAMBAY Scheme Fund, are not taxable as they lack profit. It also found that concessions provided to employees based on a Government Order were not a violation of Section 13(3) and did not disentitle the assessee from exemption.

The Tribunal held that concessions granted to employees based on a Government Order do not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 11, as it is a social welfare measure. Grants received for specific purposes, like the VAMBAY Scheme Fund, are not taxable as they lack profit elements.

The Tribunal held that grants received for specific purposes, like the VAMBAY Scheme Fund, cannot be taxed as they lack profit. It also ruled that benefits provided to employees under a Government Order are not a violation of Section 13(3) and do not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption.

The Tribunal held that grants received for specific purposes, like the VAMBAY Scheme Fund, cannot be taxed as they lack an element of profit. It also ruled that rebates/reservations for employees, based on a Government Order, do not disentitle the authority from claiming exemption under Section 11, as these are social welfare measures and not for the benefit of specified persons under Section 13(3).

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a contract manufacturer for UBL, and the income generated from the manufacture and sale of UBL's brands was effectively earned by UBL. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that concessions to employees based on a Government Order do not violate Section 13(3) and do not disentitle the assessee from exemption. Grants received for specific purposes, like the VAMBAY Scheme Fund, are not taxable as they lack profit.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that grants received for specific purposes, like the VAMBAY Scheme Fund, are not taxable as they lack profit. It also held that concessions to employees under a government order do not disentitle the authority from claiming exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the lower authorities. The assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was not found to be substantiated.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on limitation without proper verification was incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to medical reasons. It also agreed that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity during assessment and penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the issue in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment order. This was based on the assessee's submission that they did not get a reasonable opportunity in the assessment and appellate proceedings, and the Revenue's representative did not object. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate opportunity to the assessee and did not pass a speaking order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had opted out of receiving notices via email, yet the CIT(A) issued notices through email and did not provide sufficient opportunity for compliance. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also failed to provide a reasonable opportunity. Consequently, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, directing it to provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. If the delay is condoned, the NFAC should decide the appeal on its merits, after giving the assessee a chance to present its case.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for adjudication on merits, acknowledging that the assessee missed the hearing due to their accountant's preoccupation. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future notices.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause due to compelling medical reasons from filing the appeals within the time limit. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer passed orders without providing a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the non-furnishing of Form 67 before the due date is not fatal to the claim for FTC, especially when the DTAA provisions prevail. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of taxes paid in Denmark and to decide the issue in light of the precedents and CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one last opportunity to present his case. Therefore, the file was restored to the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide one last opportunity to the assessee to present his case and produce necessary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the assessee opted for VSVS and sought to withdraw the appeal, with no objection from the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee could apply for restoration if the issue is not settled under VSVS.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Judicial Member permitted the assessee to withdraw the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the assessee's explicit request and the revenue's lack of objection. No substantive issues regarding the merits of the assessment or the order under challenge were decided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that neither the Assessing Authority nor the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and failed to consider the grounds raised. The impugned orders were set aside to ensure the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to allow credit for TDS as per Form 26AS, as the omission was due to technical glitches and not the assessee's fault. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The assessee's cross-objection regarding interest on refund was rejected due to lack of evidence of informing the AO about technical glitches.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum proceedings for the same assessment year were set aside by a co-ordinate bench to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following this, the Tribunal also set aside the penalty order to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the Senior Departmental Representative had no objection. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that no TDS liability arises for the supply of material. However, for short deductions on other services, the matter was restored to the AO to verify if the exclusion of service tax component was the reason for short deduction, in light of the relevant CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Department erred in not considering Form-10B while processing the assessee's income. The assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal due to medical reasons. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was dismissed as withdrawn on account of opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the dispute was not settled under the scheme.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC with a direction to give the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and then decide the appeal on merits. The NFAC was to condone the delay if explained properly and provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired and no action was taken to substitute legal heirs. Despite efforts, the legal heirs did not come forward. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, granting liberty for restoration if pursued as per law.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired and no action was taken to substitute legal heirs. Despite efforts, the legal heirs did not come forward. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, granting liberty for restoration if pursued as per law.

The ITAT dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the legal heir failed to file the revised Form-36 as required under Rule 26 of the IT(AT) Rules, 1963, for substitution after the appellant's death. However, the legal heir was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal upon fulfilling the necessary procedural requirements.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the assessee had obtained certificates under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the D.R. had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals. The primary reason for dismissal was the death of the assessee, Abdul Hameed Chikwa, in December 2017. Despite the appeals being filed in 2017, no action had been taken to bring the legal heirs on record. The assessee's counsel expressed an inability to prosecute the appeals as the legal heirs could not be contacted. The Tribunal noted that while an appeal does not abate upon the death of a party, it can only be continued if a revised Form No. 36, duly filled with the names of the legal representatives and verified as per rules, is filed. As no such action was taken by the taxpayer, the Tribunal was left with no option but to dismiss the appeals. The Tribunal granted liberty to the legal heirs for restoration of the appeals if pursued as per law. The specific grounds related to section 80HHC and section 271(1)(c) were not adjudicated on merits due to the procedural issue.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals. The primary reason for dismissal was the death of the assessee, Abdul Hameed Chikwa, in December 2017. Despite the appeals being filed in 2017, no action had been taken to bring the legal heirs on record. The assessee's counsel expressed an inability to prosecute the appeals as the legal heirs could not be contacted. The Tribunal noted that while an appeal does not abate upon the death of a party, it can only be continued if a revised Form No. 36, duly filled with the names of the legal representatives and verified as per rules, is filed. As no such action was taken by the taxpayer, the Tribunal was left with no option but to dismiss the appeals. The Tribunal granted liberty to the legal heirs for restoration of the appeals if pursued as per law. The specific grounds related to section 80HHC and section 271(1)(c) were not adjudicated on merits due to the procedural issue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired and no action was taken to substitute legal heirs. Despite efforts, the legal heirs did not come forward. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, granting liberty for restoration if pursued as per law.

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

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal on medical grounds, as the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) were ex-parte, and a reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue agreed that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass a de novo assessment order in accordance with law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee on the specific issue of the addition of Rs. 1,22,24,000/-. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal agreed with the Pr.CIT that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the Assessing Officer failed to make necessary inquiries and verifications regarding cash deposits and agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty to pass speaking orders on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty to pass speaking orders on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty to pass speaking orders on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits and failed to rebut the findings of the CIT(A). Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was sustained.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2024, making the appeal infructuous. The Revenue was given liberty to seek restoration if the issue was not settled under the scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the appeal, citing its decision to opt for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2024. The assessee had submitted the relevant certificates (Form No. 1 and Form No. 2) as proof of opting for the scheme. The Revenue's representative did not object to the withdrawal. In light of these submissions and the lack of objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal also clarified, by way of abundant caution, that the assessee would be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal if it is found that the issue in dispute in the present appeal is not settled under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had consciously chosen to avail benefits under Section 11 read with Section 12A of the Act during the assessment proceedings, despite having an approval under Section 10(23C) which was valid for the assessment year in question as per CBDT Circular No. 7/2010. The Tribunal found no justifiable reason for the assessee to change its stand after the assessment proceedings were finalized. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) erred in granting relief under Section 10(23C) which was not claimed by the assessee. Furthermore, the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's claim that the addition should be limited to Rs. 29,89,040/- without proper verification at the Assessing Officer's end. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue of quantification of the addition to the Assessing Officer, directing him to recompute the addition in accordance with law after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity, and to verify the assessee's claim regarding the reduced addition amount.

The Tribunal set aside all disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo decision. This was to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case on all grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and rejected the application for condonation of delay, concluding that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the extensive delay. The Tribunal found the assessee negligent and the cited case laws distinguishable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2024. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the issue was not settled under the scheme.