Loading ITAT cases…
82 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in rectifying his earlier order to disallow the Section 80P deduction, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the 'kuri' business is a profit-making activity and not incidental to the trust's primary charitable objects. The amendment to Section 2(15) with effect from 01.04.2009 prohibits claiming exemption for business income unless it's incidental to charitable activities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier orders under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without the department filing an appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the initial allowance by the CIT(A) was based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had initially allowed the deduction based on a High Court judgment. However, the CIT(A) later rectified this order under Section 154 due to a subsequent Full Bench judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. The appeal was filed against this rectification order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier orders under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without the department filing an appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the initial allowance by the CIT(A) was based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier orders under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without the department filing an appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the initial allowance by the CIT(A) was based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier orders under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without the department filing an appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the initial allowance by the CIT(A) was based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier orders under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without the department filing an appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the initial allowance by the CIT(A) was based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier orders under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without the department filing an appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the initial allowance by the CIT(A) was based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's activities in light of the Kerala High Court's judgment in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2). The appeals were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and the factual matrix. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying the order under Section 154 as the issue of Section 80P deduction was debatable and not a 'mistake apparent from the record'. Therefore, the rectification was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and the factual matrix. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and the factual matrix. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without the department filing an appeal. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's activities in light of the Kerala High Court's judgment in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2). The appeals were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his own order under Section 154 to disallow the Section 80P deduction, especially when the Assessing Officer had not appealed the initial favorable order. The Tribunal found the rectification to be an abuse of Section 154 powers.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without the department filing an appeal. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his own order under Section 154 to disallow the Section 80P deduction, especially when the Assessing Officer had not appealed the initial favorable order. The Tribunal found the rectification to be an abuse of Section 154 powers.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without the department filing an appeal. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without considering the merits of the case and the department's right to appeal. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and the factual matrix. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and the factual matrix. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and the factual matrix. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without considering the department's appeal status. The Tribunal restored the CIT(A)'s original order allowing the deduction.
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. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying the order under Section 154 as the issue of Section 80P deduction was debatable and not a 'mistake apparent from the record'. Therefore, the rectification was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without considering the department's appeal status. The Tribunal restored the CIT(A)'s original order allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without considering the department's appeal status. The Tribunal restored the CIT(A)'s original order allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying the order under Section 154 as the issue of Section 80P deduction was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the rectification order was set aside.