Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies only to co-operative banks and not to credit co-operative societies. The assessee, being a credit co-operative society, is eligible for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 was invalid because it failed to specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being initiated. This lack of specificity offended the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies only to co-operative banks, not to credit co-operative societies. As the assessee is a credit co-operative society and not a co-operative bank, it is eligible for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following the jurisdictional High Court. It also directed the deletion of advertisement expenses apportioned to the assessee's STPI units as they did not benefit from them.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies only to cooperative banks, not credit cooperative societies. Therefore, the assessee, being a credit cooperative society, is eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for Section 10B deduction was not valid due to improper approval, an alternative claim for deduction under Section 10A should be considered. The matter was remitted to the AO for de-novo consideration of the Section 10A claim.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gain/loss should be included in operating revenue for calculating the operating margin, following previous decisions. The issue of depreciation on networking equipment was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that since KIADB's registration was confirmed by the High Court, its interest income was not taxable. Therefore, there was no obligation for the bank to deduct TDS. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank holding an RBI license, is eligible for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's precedents.
The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover when computing deduction under Section 10A, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The pendency of SLPs against the High Court's decision was not a reason to deviate.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals. Applying the principle that law aids the vigilant, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal was unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to prosecute. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the AO made ad hoc disallowances without clearly demarcating unsupported expenses. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance for vehicle quarterly taxes and reduce other disallowances was justified as the assessee had produced books of account and evidence for statutory payments.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 42,11,320, noting that the Assessing Officer had rectified the order to delete this amount. The issue of sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 4,07,552 was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO violated principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard before making an adverse finding regarding the genuineness of the loans. The CIT(A) also erred in not admitting additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on capital assets for charitable trusts, even if their cost was claimed as application of income. This is because depreciation is a normal commercial deduction and does not amount to double benefit. The Tribunal also held that excess expenditure incurred by a trust in earlier years can be carried forward and set off against income in subsequent years.
The Tribunal found that the FTC was indeed claimed in the revised return filed within the stipulated time. Therefore, the lower authorities erred in not considering this claim.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee's services, including data processing for legal matters like patent applications, qualified as Information Technology enabled services under the relevant circular and were eligible for deduction under Section 10A.
The Tribunal held that Section 80AC of the Income Tax Act, which mandates filing the return by the due date for claiming deductions under Section 80-IB, is mandatory and not directory. Therefore, the deduction cannot be allowed if the return is filed late.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of the addition, following its own prior decision on an identical issue for a previous assessment year. The Tribunal found no evidence that the assessee realized more than what was recorded in its books.
The Tribunal held that the expression 'a residential house' under Section 54 should not be interpreted strictly as a singular unit. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, exemption was allowed for two flats that were located together.
The Tribunal held that the AO made ad hoc disallowances without clearly demarcating unsupported expenses. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance for vehicle quarterly taxes and reduce other disallowances was justified as the assessee had produced books of account and evidence for statutory payments.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds, not immediately required for lending to members, and deposited in banks is attributable to the business of banking or providing credit facilities. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal held that neither Section 68 nor Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act were attracted as there was no cessation or remission of liability by the creditors.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be allowed without setting off brought forward losses from other units, as per the High Court's ruling in Yokogawa India Ltd. The cross-objection by the assessee was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that losses from non-Section 10A units cannot be set off against Section 10A income, as Section 10A income is excluded before arriving at gross total income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction for parity between export and total turnover in calculating the deduction, following jurisdictional High Court precedents.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting its case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.