ITAT Lucknow Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and, with no objection from the Revenue, permitted the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer to consider the evidence regarding the source of investments. The assessee was advised to make due compliance in the restored proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the Section 68 issue to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to produce detailed evidence of accounting for cash deposits against sales. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was confirmed due to lack of submissions from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a typographical error in the return of income, leading to an incorrect offer of capital gains, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under Section 154. The CIT(A) was entitled to consider such claims in an appeal against a Section 154 order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the AO. This was due to the AO's notices being sent to an incorrect email address, preventing the assessee from participating in the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principle that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of mutual fund switching needed detailed examination and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the gross value of securities cannot be treated as capital gains without considering the cost of acquisition. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on contributions made to UPCU as it was not directly paying salaries to the deputed staff, and there was no evidence of markup. The issue of interest on late TDS deposit was remanded to the CIT(A) for further determination.

The Tribunal held that additions for sundry creditors were unsustainable as the purchases were not doubted, and the creditworthiness of creditors is not material when purchases are genuine. The rejection of books of accounts was also deemed unsustainable as the assessee had e-filed most documents and was not given sufficient time to produce the rest.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the CIT(A) should have verified whether the transactions were accounted for under the new PAN before deleting the addition. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for necessary verification.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice under Section 147 was vitiated as it was issued based on a higher authority's instruction without independent satisfaction of income escaping assessment by the AO. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were rendered void ab initio.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present their case with necessary evidence. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee concerning the reopening of the assessment and the addition of Rs. 77,40,914/-. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a proper decision on these issues.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent DVO valuation report, obtained after the assessment, was crucial evidence to rebut the AO's findings. The CIT(A)'s refusal to admit this report was deemed incorrect, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer ought to have given the assessee an adequate opportunity to represent their case effectively. The impugned order was set aside and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on limitation without considering the merits. The delay should have been condoned, and the issue of correct salary income required examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C cannot be invoked when the source of cash withdrawals is explained, even if the purpose is not. The addition was deemed unsustainable as the source of the funds withdrawn from the bank account was not in dispute.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C cannot be invoked when the source of cash withdrawals is explained, even if the purpose is not. The addition was deemed unsustainable as the source of the funds withdrawn from the bank account was not in dispute.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of advancing funds was not an adventure in the nature of trade and that the interest expenditure was allowable as a deduction under Section 57(iii) as it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution as the assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings despite opportunities. The assessee can apply for recall of the order if a sufficient cause for non-appearance is demonstrated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether the land was agricultural at the time of purchase.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard and to cross-examine the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to personal hardships faced by the partners. It held that the partner remuneration was a genuine business expenditure authorized by the partnership deed and should be allowed as a set-off.

The Tribunal held that an increase in sales does not automatically justify an addition, especially when books of account are accepted and sales proceeds are already recorded. Sustaining an addition on estimation without specific defects in books is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that an increase in sales does not automatically justify an addition, especially when books of account are accepted and sales proceeds are already recorded. Sustaining an addition on estimation without specific defects in books is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that cash sales, once disclosed as revenue receipts and included in the profit and loss account, cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68. It also found that the addition for 'extra profit' was based on mere assumption without evidence.