ITAT Lucknow Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal found the initiation of reassessment proceedings to be valid. However, it set aside the NFAC's order confirming an addition of Rs. 33,15,894/- due to a lack of thorough examination. The matter was remanded to the NFAC for de novo examination.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to hear it on merits, acknowledging the peculiar facts of the case and granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the departmental appeals was below the Rs. 60 lakhs limit set by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. Consequently, the departmental appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to admit and examine crucial documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after admitting the evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard by the appellate authority. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the assessment was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in a similar case, holding that interest income arising from investments in statutory reserve funds and other funds, as per the UP Cooperative Societies Act, is attributable to the society's main activities and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present her case with supporting evidence for the cash deposits. The Tribunal cautioned the assessee to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-computation of the admissible deduction under Section 80P. This was to consider interest earned on investments made in accordance with specific sections of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the First Appellate Authority with directions to grant the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. If the delay is condoned, the appeal should be decided on merits after providing the assessee a chance to present their case.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the First Appellate Authority to decide the matter on merits, directing the assessee to comply with the authority's directions. The Tribunal cautioned the assessee against non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that furnishing Form No. 10 during assessment proceedings before the final order is sufficient compliance. The delay in filing was condonable, especially as it was the first year of mandatory electronic filing and the assessee is a genuine charitable trust.