ITAT Lucknow

No addition on mere frequent withdrawal and deposit of own money

DCIT Vs Smt. Veena Awasthi (ITAT Lucknow)

Addition made by AO merely on the ground that assessee made frequent withdrawal and deposit of his own money was not justified as the same was not prohibited under any law....

Read More

No penalty on surrendered amount in revised Income Tax return

Dy. CIT Vs Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery (P) Ltd (ITAT Lucknow)

Since assessee had included the surrendered amount in its revised return and no such concealment or non-disclosure was made as assessee had made a complete disclosure of income in its revised return. Therefore, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied....

Read More

No Default if TDS been deducted & Paid as per Certificate issue U/s. 197

M/s Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd. Vs ITO (TDS) (ITAT Luknow)

M/s Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd. Vs ITO (TDS) (ITAT Luknow) On general reading of provisions of section 197 of the Act, it authorizes the Assessing Officer to prescribe deduction of TDS at any lower rate provided the facts and circumstances justify such deduction. Clause (2) of section 197 of the Act further states that when […]...

Read More

ITAT deletes addition under section 40A(3) for Cash payments to BSNL

Kamta Prasad Mittal Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Lucknow)

Kamta Prasad Mittal Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Lucknow) It is an undisputed fact that a Demand Note was issued by BSNL requiring the assessee to make payments in cash and genuinity of the payments to BSNL was never doubted by the With regard to the observation of the ld. CIT(A) that BSNL is not a […]...

Read More

No penalty for entering PAN instead of TAN in TDS Challan on account of bona-fide mistake

ITOr Vs M/s Umatech (ITAT Lucknow)

Necessary TDS was deducted and it was deposited in the Government Treasury. All these are on record and only there is a technical error that in the challan PAN number of the assessee is mentioned instead of TAN in the relevant column on account of bona-fide mistake, for which assessee should not be penalized or punished when there is no l...

Read More

No Penalty U/s. 271B if assessee maintained books of account

Mohd. Imtiyaz Khan Prop Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Lucknow)

Whether penalty under section 271B of the Act could be levied in a case where the books of account were maintained by the assessee. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in that case held that where no account has been maintained, section 271B does not get attracted and instead recourse under section 271A can be taken. ...

Read More

Registration U/s. 12AA cannot be denied if trust activities are genuine and in consonance with objects of trust or institution

Chokhraj Tulasyan Sarswati Vidya Mandir Inter College Vs. CIT (ITAT Lucknow)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow bench recently held that the charitable nature of the activities of a society cannot be suspected as the same was within its objects as given in the bye-laws....

Read More

Section 50C not applicable to cold storage building

Laxmi Ice & Cold Storage Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Lucknow)

Provisions of section 50C of the Act is not applicable to the cold storage building so to substitute actual sale consideration by deemed sale consideration and the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 147/143(3) of the Act cannot be a subject matter of section 263. ...

Read More

Registration U/s. 12AA cannot be denied for Non-submission of Form 10B at the time of registration

B.C. Sharma Memorial Society For Education & Social Welfare Vs CIT (ITAT Lucknow)

At the outset, Learned A. R. submitted that assessee is running a school and had been claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iii) and now the assessee had applied for registration u/s 12AA which the CIT (Exemptions) has refused relying on the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act....

Read More

Every wrong claim by assessee cannot tantamount to furnishing of wrong particulars

M/s Agrahari Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T. (ITAT Lucknow)

The ITAT bench comprising of Accountant Member T. S. Kapoor and Judicial Member Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not attract when assessee makes an Ineligible Claim....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,122)
Company Law (4,666)
Custom Duty (7,263)
DGFT (3,917)
Excise Duty (4,191)
Fema / RBI (3,670)
Finance (3,881)
Income Tax (29,667)
SEBI (3,114)
Service Tax (3,446)