Loading ITAT cases…
193 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank as defined under Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and therefore, is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P. The claim for deduction in a belated return was also found to be allowable.
The tribunal held that a belated return filed during the assessment proceedings does not disentitle the assessee to Section 80P deduction, referencing a Kerala High Court judgment. It also noted that Section 80AC was not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the Section 80P deduction due to non-compliance with Section 80A(5). However, it deleted the penalty under Section 271B, finding a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case, held that interest income from deposits in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), not Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The disallowance was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh computation of disallowance. The AO was directed to consider only exempt income yielding investments and provide the assessee with three effective opportunities to prove relevant facts.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the tax audit report and return was due to reasonable cause, as the assessee had to comply with state government directions. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank as defined under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and is therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal also found that interest income derived from members and deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee from investments with another co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the tax audit reports, if explained with reasonable cause, can lead to the deletion of penalties under Section 273B. The change in auditor was considered a reasonable cause for the delay.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A of the Act is mandatory, even if no specific objection is raised by the assessee. The lower authorities failed to make such a reference.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the addition should be computed on a gross or net basis was settled by a previous coordinate bench decision. The AO was directed to re-compute the income on a netting basis.
The Tribunal held that the late filing fees levied were not applicable as the relevant quarters were prior to the amendment of Section 234E. There was no indication of retrospective application of the amended provision.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., held that interest income from deposits in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), not Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the penalty for non-compliance with the Section 142(1) notice was wrongly levied as the assessee had complied with requirements. It also held that the delay in filing the tax audit report was due to reasonable causes, warranting deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was to allow for consideration of intervening developments, particularly the subsequent grant of Section 12A registration, and a detailed examination of the terms of the government grants concerning the interest income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly dealing with the facts and without framing points of determination as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the addition was made in principle but noted that the lower authorities did not consider the assessee's agricultural income. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 18,70,554/-, granting partial relief.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank within the meaning of Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on Supreme Court judgments. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The additions under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) had erred in rejecting the applications solely on technical grounds of limitation and non-compliance without examining the merits. Following a previous precedent, the Tribunal interpreted the time limit provisions to avoid absurdity, especially for entities that had already commenced charitable activities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and therefore is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Supreme Court's decisions in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank were relied upon.
The Tribunal held that a bonafide explanation by the assessee, even if incorrect, excludes the operation of Section 270A penalty. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the statutory amendment regarding the impugned levy was applicable only from June 1, 2015, and was not retrospective. Therefore, the levy was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Income Tax Act, which allows for disallowance of deductions, was effective from April 1, 2021. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to the assessment year 2018-19.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not decided the assessee's substantive grounds on merits as required by law. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and therefore, is eligible for the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that both the assessee and the Assessing Officer failed to respond to NFAC notices. Therefore, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to appear before the NFAC with the required documents.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the documents filed by the assessee, including the return of income, Form 26AS, and statement of accounts, which clearly showed the TDS credit. The CIT(A)'s dismissal for want of verification was against the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was invalid as it did not specify any incriminating material found against the assessee. Therefore, the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was properly explained due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. Since no additions were made to the returned income and the audit report was filed before the assessment was completed, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal held that if the tax audit report is furnished before the completion of assessment, the penalty under Section 271B shall not be imposed. The delay in filing was explained and no revenue loss occurred.
The Tribunal found that notices were not properly served on the assessee, especially during the Covid-19 period. Therefore, the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disallowing the Section 80P deduction. It was established that the income was derived from members of the co-operative society, and relied on Supreme Court and Kerala High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disallowing the Section 80P deduction. It was established that the income was derived from members of the co-operative society, and relied on Supreme Court and Kerala High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disallowing the Section 80P deduction. It was established that the income was derived from members of the co-operative society, and relied on Supreme Court and Kerala High Court judgments.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh verification. The assessee was directed to plead and prove all relevant facts before the AO within three opportunities.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction. The claim was not made in the original return, which is a mandatory requirement as per Section 80A(5) of the Act.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits. The NFAC is directed to provide at least three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 80A(5) is attracted when a deduction is claimed in a return filed after the assessment order has been framed. The assessee's claim for deduction was therefore invalid.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing that the NFAC failed to provide a detailed adjudication as required. The taxpayer will be responsible for pleading and proving all relevant facts.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order lacked a proper adjudication of the assessee's grounds. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits. The NFAC was directed to provide at least three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that payments made to a government department like KSEB are covered by the exception in Rule 6DD(b) of the IT Rules. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not sustainable.