Loading ITAT cases…
108 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the actual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The AO is not bound solely by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the actual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The AO is not bound solely by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the actual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The AO is not bound solely by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80P. The assessee societies were considered eligible for the deduction as co-operative societies.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80P. The assessee's status as a co-operative society, eligible for the deduction, was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Popular Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT squarely covers the issue against the assessee. Therefore, no deduction is allowable for employee contributions to EPF if not paid within the due date specified in Section 36(1)(va).
The Tribunal held that sale proceeds not received within six months and inter-unit sales do not qualify as export turnover for Section 10B deduction, confirming the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It was found that the Special Reserve Account was maintained intact, and therefore, Section 41(4A) was not applicable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P requires an examination of the assessee's actual activities, not just its registration. The issue of deduction on interest income from other banks was also remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted conflicting High Court decisions on whether a society registered as a PACS under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is automatically eligible for deduction under Section 80P, especially after the introduction of Section 80P(4). The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty orders were not barred by limitation. It was also found that there was no reasonable cause for non-furnishing the information.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders without hearing the assessees. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal noted conflicting High Court decisions on whether a society registered as a PACS under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is automatically eligible for deduction under Section 80P, especially after the introduction of Section 80P(4). The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders without hearing the assessees. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders without hearing the assessees. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders without hearing the assessees. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders without hearing the assessees. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty orders were not barred by limitation. It was also found that there was no reasonable cause for non-furnishing the information.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty orders were not barred by limitation. It was also found that there was no reasonable cause for non-furnishing the information.
The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P requires an examination of the assessee's actual activities, not just its registration. The issue of deduction on interest income from other banks was also remitted for fresh consideration.