Loading ITAT cases…
125 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal directed the AO to examine if the interest income from Central Co-operative Bank was due to compulsions under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. If so, it should be treated as business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). If not eligible for 80P(2)(a)(i), the AO should examine eligibility under Section 80P(2)(d), and if neither applies, consider deduction for cost of funds under Section 57.
The Tribunal directed the AO to examine if the interest income from Central Co-operative Bank was due to compulsions under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. If so, it should be treated as business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). If not eligible for 80P(2)(a)(i), the AO should examine eligibility under Section 80P(2)(d), and if neither applies, consider deduction for cost of funds under Section 57.
The Tribunal held that if a property was let out in earlier years and remained vacant during the current year due to non-availability of tenants, the annual let out value should be computed under Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The vacancy allowance should be granted in such cases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed not to have received the notice from NFAC and requested another opportunity. While the Revenue opposed this, the Tribunal felt it appropriate to give the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay.
The Tribunal noted that while not all demonetization deposits are unaccounted cash, the burden is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the deposit. The Tribunal found that the verification by the AO was not in accordance with CBDT circulars, necessitating further inquiry.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the issues after admitting the evidence. The assessee was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and was directed to not seek unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal considered the concept of mutuality and the definition of 'member' as per the relevant Cooperative Societies Act. It also examined whether the interest earned from investments with banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments regarding the eligibility of co-operative societies for Section 80P deduction.
The Tribunal noted that ex parte orders were passed by both revenue authorities. Considering the assessee had genuine reasons for not responding due to personal circumstances, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), relying on the Supreme Court judgment regarding extension of limitation during the COVID period. The Tribunal also condoned the 2-day delay in filing the present appeal before the ITAT, again referencing the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid because the time limit for issuing notice under Section 143(2) had not expired when the Section 148 notice was issued. Therefore, income could not be considered to have escaped assessment.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid because the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) had not expired. Therefore, income could not be considered to have escaped assessment.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and in the interest of justice, decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh examination. This was to allow the assessee to furnish necessary documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the cash deposits made during the demonetization period, as per CBDT guidelines.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, which included details of licence fees and consultant reimbursement charges. The issues pertaining to penalty proceedings under section 270A were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee and citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal also noted that the bank statements and other aspects of the case were not properly examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee faced medical issues that prevented timely compliance and that the original assessment was also ex-parte. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO applied a dual policy by allowing interest expenses on the loans while disallowing the loans themselves. It was also noted that the assessee had provided details of the lenders, and the AO did not conduct further inquiries. The Tribunal relied on case law stating that once the assessee discloses the identity and PAN of lenders who are income tax assessees, the initial burden is discharged.
The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine the applicability of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, to the assessee and the payer banks. It also directed the AO to determine the cost of funds for earning interest income from commercial banks.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed against a rectification order u/s 154, which is generally infructuous if the original order u/s 143(3) is the subject of appeal. The grounds raised before the ITAT were not emanating from the CIT(A)'s findings. The assessee was given liberty to file an appeal before the CIT(A) against the original assessment order u/s 143(3).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after being satisfied that there was a reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) decided the appeal ex parte and directed the CIT(E) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing them to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to decide the case on merit.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 18/2015 is applicable to co-operative banks where the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies, and the assessee's counsel could not demonstrate its applicability to the assessee society. Therefore, the issue of whether the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies to the assessee was remitted to the Assessing Officer (AO). Regarding interest from co-operative banks, the Tribunal observed that it is unclear if the interest payer is a bank registered with the RBI and holding a license. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. vs. The Assessing Officer, Trivandrum & Ors., the Tribunal held that if the payer bank falls under the definition of a co-operative bank, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on such interest income. This issue was also remitted to the AO. For interest income from other commercial banks, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that Section 80P(2)(d) deduction is not available. However, it noted that no cost of expenses under Section 57 was allowed against the interest income treated as income from other sources. Relying on the Karnataka High Court judgment in Totagars’ Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. vs ITO Sirsi, the Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for claiming its cost of funds. This issue was remitted to the AO for determining the cost of funds. The issues for AY 2020-21 were similarly remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the case was migrated to NFAC and notices were not served to the assessee. It found substance in the assessee's submission that entire receipts cannot be considered income. The issue was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration with an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC did not consider relevant Supreme Court decisions regarding the applicability of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction to co-operative societies. The Tribunal directed the NFAC/CIT(A) to reconsider the claims in light of these Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC did not consider relevant Supreme Court decisions regarding the applicability of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction to co-operative societies. The Tribunal directed the NFAC/CIT(A) to reconsider the claims in light of these Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC/CIT(A) had not considered recent Supreme Court decisions regarding Section 80P deductions. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the NFAC/CIT(A) for readjudication.