ITAT Lucknow Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the First Appellate Authority, directing them to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee was granted one last opportunity to present her case with supporting evidence for the cash deposits.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance before the first appellate authority, granted a final opportunity for substantial justice. The case was restored to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for a fresh hearing, with a caution to the assessee for future compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case with supporting evidence, with a caution to comply with the AO's directions.

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 explain the bank transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-compliance was due to his lack of education and reliance on his counsel, who failed to make the necessary compliances. Given that the sale proceeds were used for construction and unlikely to result in tax liability, the Tribunal found reasonable grounds for deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal held that cash withdrawals from the bank account were explained by transfers from Money Transfer Agencies and thus not unexplained money. However, the commission income and cash deposits required further verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that if the share application money was introduced in previous years, it could not be taxed in the current year. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to medical reasons. It was held that a reasonable cause for non-compliance, as per section 273B, warrants the deletion of the penalty.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and passed a non-speaking order. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that passing an order on rectification before considering the pending appeal against the original additions makes the order premature. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for consideration along with the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that the repayment of the loan was eligible to be treated as an application of income under the first proviso to Explanation 4 of Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, as it was repaid from the current year's income and no prior claim for application of income was made for the capital expenditure funded by the loan.

The ITAT restored the assessment to the AO for de novo consideration, finding that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding compensation for land acquisition. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside pending fresh assessment.

The assessee later discovered that a rectification order under Section 154 had already reduced the assessed income to nil for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the appeal had become infructuous.

The ITAT restored the assessment to the AO for de novo consideration, finding that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding compensation for land acquisition. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside pending fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee's audit report while making a best judgment assessment, rendering the additions arbitrary. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank was justified in not deducting tax at source on LFC payments. This was because of the subsisting interim stay granted by the Madras High Court, which prevented the bank from deducting tax without committing contempt of court.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal as defective due to non-removal of defects and absence of assessee's representation. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee could approach again if defects are removed and sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank was justified in not deducting tax at source on LFC payments. This was because of the subsisting interim stay granted by the Madras High Court, which prevented the bank from deducting tax without committing contempt of court.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it to be just and fair. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s detailed reasoning and sustained the view taken.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was levied no longer survived (as the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment), the penalty also cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the evidence was sufficient to explain the deposits and directed the deletion of the additions.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to explain the deposits.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, directing it to hear the matter on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future notices.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was obligated to consider the assessee's objections to the reopening of the assessment, and failure to do so violated principles of natural justice. Furthermore, Schedule-I of the ITR is for amounts accumulated under Section 11(2), not for deemed applications under Section 11(1).

The Tribunal held that once an addition is deleted by a superior appellate authority, the original addition ceases to exist. Therefore, the AO cannot initiate rectification proceedings under Section 154 to modify or enhance a non-existent addition.

The Tribunal held that interest income from investments in banks, including FDRs and savings accounts, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it is not derived from the primary business of providing credit facilities or assistance to cane growers. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of the validity of the notice issued by the Assessment Unit.

The Tribunal restored the case to the AO, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present their case with necessary evidence. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the AO's directions to avoid ex-parte orders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a registered charitable trust, was entitled to exemption under section 11. The inadvertent filing of the return in the status of a company, without issuing a notice under section 139(9), was a defect that should have been addressed. The exemption could not be denied solely due to this incorrect entry.

The Tribunal found that the fire incident could explain the assessee's non-compliance. The additions made by the AO were based on non-compliance and guesswork, not on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, which was below the CBDT prescribed limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation regarding the previous counsel's non-communication and the subsequent change of counsel. Regarding the substantive grounds, the Tribunal noted that both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. However, considering the undertaking given by the assessee's counsel in open court to produce all relevant documents before the AO, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee deserved one more opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the file to the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of the purchase of immovable property. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an order based on available material, even if ex-parte. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the share applicant company, M/s Newjet Trexim Pvt. Ltd., had sufficient creditworthiness and that the amounts received by the assessee were either explained or had already been taxed in the hands of the share applicant.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the share applicant company, M/s Newjet Trexim Pvt. Ltd., had sufficient creditworthiness and that the amounts received by the assessee were either explained or had already been taxed in the hands of the share applicant.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not legally correct in making the addition based on mere suspicion and that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. The Tribunal followed previous judgments and the High Court's affirmation of similar orders.

The Tribunal restored the case to the AO, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present their case with necessary evidence. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the AO's directions to avoid ex-parte orders.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The interest component was not to be considered for calculating the tax effect.

The Tribunal noted that the commission payments received by the assessee corroborated his agency claim. It also observed that payments for livestock, being produce of animal husbandry, could potentially be outside Section 40A(3) due to Rule 6DD(e) and (k). However, the assessee had the primary onus to prove direct purchases from cattle owners.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not legally correct in making the addition based on mere suspicion and that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. The Tribunal followed previous judgments and the High Court's affirmation of similar orders.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 142(1) was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period as per the CBDT circular. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings as void ab initio.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessment under section 153C required incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals without waiting for the disposal of condonation applications was premature. The appeals are restored to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration after the Pr.CIT decides on the condonation applications.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's claim that the transactions belonged to Shri Dheeraj Verma and were already disclosed. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous, as the Section 143(1) adjustments were subject to the regular assessment order. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and the revised audit report regarding contingent liabilities.

The Tribunal held that rejection of an application solely on a technical ground of delay, without examining the merits of the charitable activities, is unsustainable. The delay was considered bona fide and unintentional, especially given the complexities of the transition to the new registration regime.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's claim that the transactions belonged to Shri Dheeraj Verma and were already disclosed. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte. To ensure substantive justice and provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish explanations. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but acknowledged the potential for her to present her case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals without waiting for the disposal of the condonation applications was premature. The appeals are restored to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration after the Pr.CIT decides on the condonation applications.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish explanations. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but acknowledged the potential for her to present her case.