ITAT Lucknow Judgments — July 2026

NEETU SINGH,UNNAO vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, UNNAO

ITA 652/LKW/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay without considering the merits, especially when the assessee presented a prima facie case. The assessment order was ex-parte and required verification.

USHA SHARMA,LUCKNOW vs ACIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

ITA 318/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the evidence suggested the assessees were handling the Trust's funds and making payments on its behalf, not advancing personal loans. Therefore, the additions under Section 69 were unsustainable.

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, NFAC

ITA 217/LKW/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2022-23Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim for deduction under Section 80P regarding interest income from bank deposits. The assessee did not provide necessary details to prove that these investments were made from statutory reserves or surpluses attributable to its business activities.

ROHIT ARORA,LUCKNOW vs THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, NFAC

ITA 152/LKW/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to produce evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's handicap due to counsel's illness and demise, deeming it in the interest of justice to provide another opportunity.

PREM CHANDRA SINGH,UNNAO vs LD. ITO-2(4), UNNAO, UNNAO

ITA 170/LKW/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2017-2018Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. For the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d), the Tribunal found reasonable cause for non-compliance and set aside the penalty. For the penalty under Section 271F, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.

ROHIT ARORA,LUCKNOW vs THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC

ITA 151/LKW/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to produce evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's handicap due to counsel's illness and demise, deeming it in the interest of justice to provide another opportunity.

ROHIT ARORA,LUCKNOW vs THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC

ITA 150/LKW/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to produce evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's handicap due to counsel's illness and demise, deeming it in the interest of justice to provide another opportunity.

ROHIT ARORA,LUCKNOW vs THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC

ITA 149/LKW/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to produce evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's handicap due to counsel's illness and demise, deeming it in the interest of justice to provide another opportunity.

ROHIT ARORA,LUCKNOW vs THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC

ITA 148/LKW/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to produce evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's handicap due to counsel's illness and demise, deeming it in the interest of justice to provide another opportunity.

ROHIT ARORA,LUCKNOW vs THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, NFAC

ITA 147/LKW/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to produce evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's handicap due to counsel's illness and demise, deeming it in the interest of justice to provide another opportunity.

INSTITUTE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT, UP,LUCKNOW vs ASSESSMENT UNIT (NFAC)/DCIT/ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 237/LKW/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2021-2022Remanded

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to sufficient cause, considering the complexities and efforts made by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA,LUCKNOW vs ACIT-CC-2, KANPUR

ITA 301/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the evidence suggested the assessees were handling the Trust's funds and making payments on its behalf, not advancing personal loans. Therefore, the additions under Section 69 were unsustainable.

PREM CHANDRA SINGH,UNNAO vs ITO, WARD - 2(4), UNNO-NEW/, UNNAO

ITA 113/LKW/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2026AY 2017-2018Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. For the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d), the Tribunal found reasonable cause for non-compliance and set aside the penalty. For the penalty under Section 271F, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.

UP SAHKARI GRAM VIKAS BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs DY, CIT-1, LUCKNOW-NEW

ITA 318/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from investments in banks, made out of funds temporarily held before disbursement to member farmers or repayment of loans, was part of its business activity. Therefore, such interest income was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

U P SAHKARI GRAM VIKAS BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs DY. CIT, LUCKNOW

ITA 420/LKW/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from investments in banks, made out of funds temporarily held before disbursement to member farmers or repayment of loans, was part of its business activity. Therefore, such interest income was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

PETAL RELATORS LLP,KANPUR vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR

ITA 110/LKW/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned, following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The Explanation to Section 14A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, was held to be prospective.

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,HARDOI vs ITO-3(2), HARDOI, HARDOI

ITA 210/LKW/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on the Section 54F deduction, holding that the penalty under Section 270A was premature. Penalties under Section 272A(1)(d) were also restored to the AO for verification of notice issuance.

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,HARDOI vs ITO-3(2), HARDOI, HARDOI

ITA 209/LKW/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on the Section 54F deduction, holding that the penalty under Section 270A was premature. Penalties under Section 272A(1)(d) were also restored to the AO for verification of notice issuance.

U P SAHKARI GRAM VIKAS BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs DY.CIT-1, LUCKNOW

ITA 418/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from investments in banks, made out of funds temporarily held before disbursement to member farmers or repayment of loans, was part of its business activity. Therefore, such interest income was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, BARABANKI vs ITO-5(4), BARABANKI

ITA 175/LKW/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted documents before the CIT(A) which were not adequately considered. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to allow the assessee to submit necessary documentation.

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,HARDOI vs ITO-3(2), HARDOI, HARDOI

ITA 211/LKW/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on the Section 54F deduction, holding that the penalty under Section 270A was premature. Penalties under Section 272A(1)(d) were also restored to the AO for verification of notice issuance.

UP SAHKARI GRAM VIKAS BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs DCIT-1, LUCKNOW-NEW

ITA 317/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from investments in banks, made out of funds temporarily held before disbursement to member farmers or repayment of loans, was part of its business activity. Therefore, such interest income was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

UP SAHKARI GRAM VIKAS BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs DY.CIT, LUCKNOW-NEW

ITA 419/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from investments in banks, made out of funds temporarily held before disbursement to member farmers or repayment of loans, was part of its business activity. Therefore, such interest income was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

JASVEER SINGH,HARDOI vs ITO-3(2), HARDOI, HARDOI

ITA 308/LKW/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not complied with the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a meaningful opportunity to represent their case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

SANJAR BUILDERS AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(1), LUCKNOW

ITA 364/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not raised the issue of the return being treated as non-est before the CIT(A). However, the failure of the AO to provide reasons for reopening and afford an opportunity for objections was a valid ground. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to first examine the validity of the assessment on this ground before referring it back to the AO.

ASGAR HUSAIN,FAIQ ENCLAVE, SHYAM GANJ S.O, BAREILLY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1), BAREILLY- NEW, CIT, C R BUILDING

ITA 33/LKW/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the extended limitation period as per the Supreme Court's directions on COVID-19 extensions. Therefore, the NFAC's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was unsustainable.

PALM INFRAPROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

ITA 111/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2026AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as prayed. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

M/S.SAHARA HOUSING INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

ITA 190/LKW/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees cannot be held liable for failure to deduct tax at source. The reasoning was that the amounts paid were in satisfaction of a judgment debt arising from the Supreme Court's decree. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a judgment debt loses its original character, and no TDS is deductible from it in the absence of specific provisions. The Supreme Court's order mandated full payment to SEBI for refund to investors and did not direct any TDS deduction. SEBI was to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that at the time of deposit, investors were not properly identifiable, which also negated the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessees were not 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessees.

SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

ITA 186/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees cannot be held liable for failure to deduct tax at source. The reasoning was that the amounts paid were in satisfaction of a judgment debt arising from the Supreme Court's decree. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a judgment debt loses its original character, and no TDS is deductible from it in the absence of specific provisions. The Supreme Court's order mandated full payment to SEBI for refund to investors and did not direct any TDS deduction. SEBI was to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that at the time of deposit, investors were not properly identifiable, which also negated the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessees were not 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessees.

RAJESH KUMAR,FAIZABAD vs ASSESSMENT UNIT/ITO-1, FAIZABAD

ITA 590/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal held that the NFAC did not provide the assessee with a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeals. The notices issued were inadequate, and the period for response was insufficient.

SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

ITA 189/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees cannot be held liable for failure to deduct tax at source. The reasoning was that the amounts paid were in satisfaction of a judgment debt arising from the Supreme Court's decree. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a judgment debt loses its original character, and no TDS is deductible from it in the absence of specific provisions. The Supreme Court's order mandated full payment to SEBI for refund to investors and did not direct any TDS deduction. SEBI was to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that at the time of deposit, investors were not properly identifiable, which also negated the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessees were not 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessees.

MANOJ KUMAR SINGH YADAV,LUCKOW vs ITO-3(1), LUCKNOW

ITA 550/LKW/2026[2020-21]Status: Heard24 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the cash deposit addition, finding it was out of cash collections from customers. The penalty for non-compliance with notices was reduced to one instance, as penalty is levied for each default, not each notice.

M/S. SAHARA HOUSING INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

ITA 194/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees cannot be held liable for failure to deduct tax at source. The reasoning was that the amounts paid were in satisfaction of a judgment debt arising from the Supreme Court's decree. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a judgment debt loses its original character, and no TDS is deductible from it in the absence of specific provisions. The Supreme Court's order mandated full payment to SEBI for refund to investors and did not direct any TDS deduction. SEBI was to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that at the time of deposit, investors were not properly identifiable, which also negated the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessees were not 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessees.

MANOJ KUMAR SINGH YADAV,LUCKNOW vs ITO-3(1), LUCKNOW

ITA 549/LKW/2026[2020-21]Status: Heard24 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the cash deposit addition, finding it was out of cash collections from customers. The penalty for non-compliance with notices was reduced to one instance, as penalty is levied for each default, not each notice.

RAJESH KUMAR,FAIZABAD vs ASSESSMENT UNIT/ITO-1, , FAIZABAD

ITA 591/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal held that the NFAC did not provide the assessee with a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeals. The notices issued were inadequate, and the period for response was insufficient.

M/S. SAHARA HOUSING INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

ITA 192/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees cannot be held liable for failure to deduct tax at source. The reasoning was that the amounts paid were in satisfaction of a judgment debt arising from the Supreme Court's decree. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a judgment debt loses its original character, and no TDS is deductible from it in the absence of specific provisions. The Supreme Court's order mandated full payment to SEBI for refund to investors and did not direct any TDS deduction. SEBI was to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that at the time of deposit, investors were not properly identifiable, which also negated the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessees were not 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessees.

SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

ITA 188/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees cannot be held liable for failure to deduct tax at source. The reasoning was that the amounts paid were in satisfaction of a judgment debt arising from the Supreme Court's decree. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a judgment debt loses its original character, and no TDS is deductible from it in the absence of specific provisions. The Supreme Court's order mandated full payment to SEBI for refund to investors and did not direct any TDS deduction. SEBI was to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that at the time of deposit, investors were not properly identifiable, which also negated the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessees were not 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessees.

SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

ITA 184/LKW/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees cannot be held liable for failure to deduct tax at source. The reasoning was that the amounts paid were in satisfaction of a judgment debt arising from the Supreme Court's decree. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a judgment debt loses its original character, and no TDS is deductible from it in the absence of specific provisions. The Supreme Court's order mandated full payment to SEBI for refund to investors and did not direct any TDS deduction. SEBI was to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that at the time of deposit, investors were not properly identifiable, which also negated the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessees were not 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessees.

M/S. SAHARA HOUSING INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

ITA 191/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees cannot be held liable for failure to deduct tax at source. The reasoning was that the amounts paid were in satisfaction of a judgment debt arising from the Supreme Court's decree. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a judgment debt loses its original character, and no TDS is deductible from it in the absence of specific provisions. The Supreme Court's order mandated full payment to SEBI for refund to investors and did not direct any TDS deduction. SEBI was to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that at the time of deposit, investors were not properly identifiable, which also negated the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessees were not 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessees.

SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

ITA 187/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees cannot be held liable for failure to deduct tax at source. The reasoning was that the amounts paid were in satisfaction of a judgment debt arising from the Supreme Court's decree. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a judgment debt loses its original character, and no TDS is deductible from it in the absence of specific provisions. The Supreme Court's order mandated full payment to SEBI for refund to investors and did not direct any TDS deduction. SEBI was to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that at the time of deposit, investors were not properly identifiable, which also negated the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessees were not 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessees.

M/S. SAHARA HOUSING INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

ITA 193/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees cannot be held liable for failure to deduct tax at source. The reasoning was that the amounts paid were in satisfaction of a judgment debt arising from the Supreme Court's decree. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a judgment debt loses its original character, and no TDS is deductible from it in the absence of specific provisions. The Supreme Court's order mandated full payment to SEBI for refund to investors and did not direct any TDS deduction. SEBI was to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that at the time of deposit, investors were not properly identifiable, which also negated the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessees were not 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessees.

SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

ITA 185/LKW/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees cannot be held liable for failure to deduct tax at source. The reasoning was that the amounts paid were in satisfaction of a judgment debt arising from the Supreme Court's decree. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a judgment debt loses its original character, and no TDS is deductible from it in the absence of specific provisions. The Supreme Court's order mandated full payment to SEBI for refund to investors and did not direct any TDS deduction. SEBI was to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that at the time of deposit, investors were not properly identifiable, which also negated the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessees were not 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessees.

PRASHANT SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD.,KANPUR vs ICT-2 KANPUR, KANPUR

ITA 69/LKW/2022[2008-09]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2026AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the ITAT's prior order expunging the CIT(A)'s directions rendered them invalid as a basis for reassessment. Consequently, reassessment notices issued after the limitation period were void.

PRASHANT SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD.,KANPUR vs ICT-2 KANPUR, KANPUR

ITA 70/LKW/2022[F.Y-2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2026Allowed

The Tribunal held that the ITAT's prior order expunging the CIT(A)'s directions rendered them invalid as a basis for reassessment. Consequently, reassessment notices issued after the limitation period were void.

PRASHANT SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD.,KANPUR vs CIT-2 KANPUR, KANPUR

ITA 71/LKW/2022[F.Y-2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2026Allowed

The Tribunal held that the ITAT's prior order expunging the CIT(A)'s directions rendered them invalid as a basis for reassessment. Consequently, reassessment notices issued after the limitation period were void.

JK CEMENT LIMITED,KANPUR vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 645/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2026AY 2022-23Dismissed

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

ACIT, LUCKNOW vs RAM KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

ITA 341/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the initial capital account was defective because the 'sauda' value of derivatives cannot be considered closing stock. Losses from previous years also could not be brought into the current year's capital account. The Tribunal found no basis to sustain the AO's addition.

PRASHANT SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD.,KANPUR vs DCIT-2 , KANPUR

ITA 72/LKW/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2026AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the ITAT's prior order expunging the CIT(A)'s directions rendered them invalid as a basis for reassessment. Consequently, reassessment notices issued after the limitation period were void.

ADHYA TRIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs THE DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

ITA 335/LKW/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh appellate order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

EZAD ALI,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), LAKHIMPUR

ITA 201/LKW/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the appellate orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was done after condoning the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the assessee.