ITAT Lucknow Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's genuine medical condition, which hindered his representation before the CIT(A). Finding that the CIT(A) had not had the opportunity to fully appreciate all the issues raised, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to comply and present his case.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's consistent non-compliance at all stages and the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the AO's file. The assessee was directed to make full compliance to establish that the credits and investments did not warrant additions or penalty.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's husband's imprisonment. Considering the circumstances, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's unfamiliarity with technology was a sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The case was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to comply with notices.

The Tribunal held that it was inappropriate for the CIT(A) to reject the assessee's explanation regarding non-receipt of notices without considering the merits. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to produce evidence. The penalty was quashed as premature.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea of non-receipt of notices due to issues with their Chartered Accountant firm was credible, especially given the subsequent delay in filing appeals and non-compliance in penalty proceedings. The CIT(A)'s rejection of the explanation and summary dismissal was deemed inappropriate.

The Tribunal held that the payment for testing charges did not involve human intervention and therefore was not 'fee for technical services'. Consequently, there was no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195. Thus, the disallowance under Section 40a(ia) was not sustainable, and the reassessment proceedings were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 253(3). It agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the addition of Rs. 11,10,678/- for GST expenses was unwarranted as the tax effect was nullified by subsequent accounting entries. The Tribunal further directed the deletion of the Rs. 2,50,000/- addition, finding no legal basis or reasonable justification for its estimation by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(E) erred by not considering the assessee's reply filed on 26.07.2024 and by erroneously assuming the provisional registration was valid beyond 2023-24, making the application not premature.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the appeal summarily, which violates Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) must pass a speaking order on merits, even if the appellant is non-compliant.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without establishing a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The Assessing Officer also failed to make a good case for the levy of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the cost of common areas (corridors, parking, etc.) should be included in the cost of flats sold as they are incidental to the business. The AO's method of calculating profit by excluding common areas was found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the negligence of the assessee's consultant. The Tribunal restored both matters back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration on merits, finding the rejection for section 12A was due to non-response and the rejection for 80G was based on a misunderstanding of its premature nature.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of not filing Form-9A due to accumulated income being below 15% was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) refused to accept additional evidence due to non-compliance with Rule 46A. However, the genuineness of expenses cannot be determined without examining this evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10 IC once for the initial assessment year opting for the concessional tax regime under Section 115BAA is sufficient, and it cannot be withdrawn in subsequent years. The assessee met the conditions for availing the benefit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the circumstances presented by the assessee. The Tribunal found the CIT's assumption regarding the prematurity of the 80G application to be misplaced and directed both matters to be restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration on merits, after obtaining necessary documentation.

The Tribunal held that the search and seizure operation caused significant disruption, constituting a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271B was unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's accounts were audited and found it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(Exemption). The assessee was directed to furnish any additional relevant material required by the CIT to establish that funds were spent on the charitable activities for which provisional registration had been granted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given proper and sufficient opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Exemptions). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of CIT(Exemptions) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the CIT (Exemptions) to present its case. Therefore, the orders of the CIT (Exemptions) were set aside and the matters were remanded back.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the non-processing of revised returns by CPC. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds was set aside.

The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and did not establish that the non-compliance was without reasonable cause. The AO passed a hasty order without making a good case for the penalty. Thus, the ITAT directed the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the order of the First Appellate Authority had become infructuous because the rectification application under Section 154 had already been allowed by the CPC, Bangalore. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, setting aside the order of the First Appellate Authority.

The Tribunal held that the substantive provision of Section 54(1) of the Act aims to promote housing and that the assessee had indeed invested the capital gains in a new residential property within the stipulated period. Therefore, the procedural lapse of not depositing the amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme should not deny the benefit of exemption.

The Tribunal held that the case of the assessee was squarely covered by the decisions of the Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT, which accepted similar LTCG claims of a co-owner. The Tribunal agreed that since the co-owner's returned income was accepted, the assessee should also be entitled to similar relief.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio because the jurisdictional AO did not issue the statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, which is a prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on jurisdictional High Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities' decisions were based on case laws now held to be distinguishable by this Bench. Consequently, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the AO for re-examination of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P, considering a specific order of the Tribunal. For AY 2018-19, the AO was also directed to re-consider the claim for depreciation.

The Tribunal, while noting that the CIT(A) orders were based on distinguishable case laws, restored the appeals to the AO. The AO is to examine the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P in light of the Tribunal's recent order in a similar case.

The Tribunal held that the earlier orders of the lower authorities were based on case laws that have since been distinguished by this Bench. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication in light of a recent order.

The Tribunal held that the orders of the CIT(A) were based on case laws that were subsequently distinguished by this Bench. Therefore, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the AO for re-examination of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P, in light of a previous order of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the charges paid to share brokers for delayed payments were an expenditure necessarily incurred for earning income and should be allowed. The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority's disallowance, based on it being interest on borrowed funds, was an incorrect appreciation of facts.

The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority's remarks regarding the assessee's valuation report were without basis and restored the case to the AO to obtain a report from the Departmental Valuation Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal again if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the annual premium for all three life insurance policies exceeded 10% of the sum assured, thus rendering them ineligible for exemption under Section 10(10D) of the Act. The assessee's alternative plea regarding Section 80C was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority's reasoning for partially sustaining the addition was without sound reasoning. If the assessee's contention was to be believed, it should have been accepted entirely, or rejected entirely. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the remaining addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(E). The matter was restored to the CIT(E)'s file to grant the assessee a proper opportunity to explain its case and furnish the required documents.

The Tribunal held that the shares of the beneficiaries were discernible from the return of income, despite the Trust Deed being silent. Therefore, the CPC could not have made a prima-facie adjustment and charged tax at the maximum marginal rate.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on merits and had passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition based on presumptions and conjectures without concrete evidence. The assessee had explained the source of cash deposits as cash in hand, supported by its books of account and past practices, and the AO failed to disprove this explanation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was justified. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, it was established that for deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employee's contribution to PF/ESIC must be deposited before the specified due dates. Since the assessee failed to do so, the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to ESIC/EPF paid late was justified based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to revise the demand and vacate the portion related to gratuity disallowance, as it was subsequently allowed by the AO in the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' ESIC/EPF contributions paid late, but before filing the return, is in line with Supreme Court decisions and cannot be processed under section 143(1)(a) as a debatable issue. The appeal concerning the gratuity allowance was allowed, directing the AO to give effect to the assessment order u/s 143(3) and vacate the demand.

The ITAT held that the assessee's claim for LTCG of Rs.4,93,599/- on the sale of shares of M/s. Ashikca CR was bonafide and genuine, directing its deletion as there was no material to prove manipulation or foul play. However, the additions of Rs.1,31,00,000/- for unsecured loans were confirmed, as the assessee failed to establish the financial capacity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, considering the funds were routed through M/s Fair Intermediate Investment Pvt. Ltd. (FIIPL) where the assessee was a director.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to submit details. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It set aside the impugned appellate order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.