Loading ITAT cases…
182 orders · Page 1 of 4
The tribunal found the CIT(E)'s order to be cryptic and set it aside. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration of the trust's objects, genuineness of activities, and benefit to the public at large.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P as no valid return of income was filed. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that filing a return is a mandatory pre-condition for claiming such deductions.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court has overruled the Kerala High Court judgment relied upon by the assessee. Given the assessee's request for another opportunity to justify its claim, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations do not form part of income. The matter was remitted to the AO to verify if corpus donations were treated as income and exclude them if so.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest and dividend income from co-operative banks, and under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for income derived from business exclusively with members. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits even if the assessee is absent. Dismissing for non-prosecution without considering the merits is incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 167B depends on whether the assessee is registered under the Societies Registration Act. If registered, Section 167B would not apply. The matter was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits even when dismissing it ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal on merits.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the matter afresh after granting sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not applied his mind properly, leading to an ambiguous order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) passed a short, unreasoned order without affording the assessee a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without disposing of it on merits, which is contrary to established legal principles.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) erred by considering assessment-related issues during the registration process. Registration and assessment are distinct procedures, and the CIT should only examine the charitable nature of the objects and genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as the belated submission of the audit report did not cause prejudice to the department and the assessee should not be held liable for the auditor's lapses. The AO was directed to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court has overruled the Kerala High Court judgment relied upon by the assessee. Given the assessee's request for another opportunity to justify its claim, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred by overlooking the objects and activities of the assessee and acting like an Assessing Officer. The CIT's role at the registration stage is limited to examining the nature of objects and genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to decide an appeal on merits even if disposed of ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the jurisdictional High Court in a recent judgment (Nileshwar Range) declared a previous judgment (Chirakkal) as per incuriam, the facts in the present case are different. The assessee filed the return within the time prescribed under Section 139(4).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without disposing of it on merits, which is contrary to established legal principles.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even if the assessee was absent, and therefore, the matter needs to be remanded.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not applied his mind properly, leading to an ambiguous order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) arbitrarily dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's explanation for the delay, which was that the assessment order was not physically served. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for a reasoned decision after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not deal with the delay condonation application judiciously. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that a valid return of income is a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 80P. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the assessee is not entitled to the deduction as no valid return was filed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) is not supposed to scrutinize the accounts of the assessee at the time of granting registration, as this is the role of the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P as no valid return of income was filed. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that filing a return is a mandatory pre-condition for claiming such deductions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not applied his mind properly, leading to an ambiguous order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court has overruled the Kerala High Court judgment relied upon by the assessee. Given the assessee's request for another opportunity to justify its claim, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) erred by considering assessment-related issues like building value variations during the registration process. Registration and assessment are distinct procedures.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court has overruled the Kerala High Court judgment relied upon by the assessee. Given the assessee's request for another opportunity to justify its claim, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the issue of jurisdiction under section 263 had become academic due to the subsequent passing of a consequential assessment order by the AO, which was already challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely due to the belated filing of the audit report in Form 10B, especially when the assessee is a registered trust and has been granted exemption in earlier years.
The Tribunal held that the purpose of the loan is not a criterion for allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Dealing with nominal or associate members also does not disqualify the society from claiming the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Gujarat High Court's decision regarding rights issues not attracting Section 56(2)(vii)(c) was not binding. However, it found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the valuation method, directing the Assessing Authority to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer.
The Tribunal held that only the net miscellaneous income, after deducting expenses incurred for earning it, should be taxed. The matter was restored to the AO for re-examination of expenses.
The Tribunal allowed the issue of finance charges to be restored to the AO for verification of Form 26A. It dismissed the claim for excess depreciation on motor vehicles due to lack of evidence and allowed the lease rent to be treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it is registered as a primary agricultural co-operative society. The AO's denial based on it being a co-operative bank was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the cash book produced by the assessee to substantiate cash availability. The lower authorities made additions based on presumptions without cogent reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the issue of finance charges to be restored to the AO for verification of Form 26A. It dismissed the claim for excess depreciation on motor vehicles due to lack of evidence and allowed the lease rent to be treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) solely on the ground of providing credit facilities to nominal members is unjustified. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the CPC lacked the power to disallow Section 80P deduction during the processing of the return under Section 143(1) for AY 2019-20, as this power was granted by the Finance Act, 2021, effective from 01.04.2021. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC was beyond its scope.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot go behind the registration certificate granted by the relevant authority to classify the assessee differently. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) should be considered.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay solely based on its length. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the condonation petition on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CPC lacked the power to disallow Section 80P deduction during Section 143(1) processing for AY 2019-20, as this power was granted later. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC was beyond its scope.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay solely based on its length. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the condonation petition on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the 2% risk adjustment on exports and the commission on corporate guarantee on the gross loan limit. They found the issue of risk adjustment to be a recurring one previously decided in favor of the assessee, and the commission issue was covered by precedent.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submission that Form 56F was uploaded on 29.10.2017 and that there were technical difficulties in uploading it initially. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits made from its surplus funds qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the 2% risk adjustment on exports and the commission on corporate guarantee on the gross loan limit. They found the issue of risk adjustment to be a recurring one previously decided in favor of the assessee, and the commission issue was covered by precedent.