Loading ITAT cases…
48 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that the impugned amount was not reflected in the company's ledger accounts. Therefore, the addition under Section 2(22)(e) was not sustainable and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the impugned amount was not reflected in the company's ledger accounts. Therefore, the addition under Section 2(22)(e) was not sustainable and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the impugned amount was not reflected in the company's ledger accounts. Therefore, the addition under Section 2(22)(e) was not sustainable and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that repayment details for the loan were not submitted to lower authorities and the assessee had taken inconsistent stands. For the capital contribution issue, the Tribunal noted that the balance sheets filed post-survey needed verification. Therefore, both issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal confirmed the penalty for the disallowed brokerage claim, holding it was a false claim to reduce tax. However, regarding the fair market value, the Tribunal noted the assessee relied on oral information and a valuation report, suggesting a difference of opinion rather than deliberate concealment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer before deleting the additions, especially since the assessment order was ex parte. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that repayment details for the loan were not submitted to lower authorities and the assessee had taken inconsistent stands. For the capital contribution issue, the Tribunal noted that the balance sheets filed post-survey needed verification. Therefore, both issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the US company were technical services falling under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US DTAA. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS, and the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the revisional proceedings under Section 263 were initiated beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 263(2). Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction was invalid. Even on merits, the Tribunal found that the donations were voluntary contributions towards the corpus fund and eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from investments with a District Co-operative Bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found that the District Co-operative Bank is a cooperative society and the assessee is entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the US company were technical services falling under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US DTAA. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS, and the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the US company were technical services falling under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US DTAA. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS, and the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the US company were technical services falling under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US DTAA. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS, and the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal found that repayment details for the loan were not submitted to lower authorities and the assessee had taken inconsistent stands. For the capital contribution issue, the Tribunal noted that the balance sheets filed post-survey needed verification. Therefore, both issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the US company were technical services falling under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US DTAA. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS, and the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify the grounds for penalty. Therefore, the penalty orders were invalid and cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify the grounds for penalty. Therefore, the penalty orders were invalid and cancelled.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on deposits with the sub-treasury is attributable to the banking business of the cooperative society and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that interest earned on deposits with the sub-treasury is attributable to the banking business of the cooperative society and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2). This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2). This followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that primary agricultural credit societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act are entitled to Section 80P deduction. The Tribunal found that the activities of these societies did not constitute banking business as defined by law.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative societies, being registered as primary agricultural credit societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the ITO (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty order was within the time limit prescribed by Section 275(1)(c). The assessee did not provide any reasonable cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IA, following a High Court judgment. It also allowed the expenditure on cattle keepers as a labor welfare measure directly relatable to the tea business.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IA, following a High Court judgment. It also allowed the expenditure on cattle keepers as a labor welfare measure directly relatable to the tea business.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observation regarding the reduction of assessed income was incorrect, as the reassessment under Section 147 actually resulted in a higher assessed income. Therefore, Section 234B(3) was applicable, not Section 234B(4). The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the interest.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IA, following a High Court judgment. It also allowed the expenditure on cattle keepers as a labor welfare measure directly relatable to the tea business.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IA, following a High Court judgment. It also allowed the expenditure on cattle keepers as a labor welfare measure directly relatable to the tea business.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the deduction under Section 80P. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which held that registered primary agricultural credit societies are entitled to the Section 80P deduction.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IA, following a High Court judgment. It also allowed the expenditure on cattle keepers as a labor welfare measure directly relatable to the tea business.