Loading ITAT cases…
143 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that interest received on income tax refunds is eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it arises from business operations. It also held that interest earned from surplus funds invested in banks and treasury, as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, is also eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after the assessee files a condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that interest received on income tax refunds is eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it arises from business operations. It also held that interest earned from surplus funds invested in banks and treasury, as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, is also eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had submitted supporting documents before it, these were not produced before the AO. Therefore, the issue of unexplained cash credit was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 500 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's reasons genuine and supported by Supreme Court orders regarding COVID-19 related extensions. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 500 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's reasons genuine and supported by Supreme Court orders regarding COVID-19 related extensions. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the partial relief of 10% granted by the CIT(A), considering that the assessee dealt only with its members whose details were available and the transactions were recorded. The penalty equivalent to taxes was deemed not required.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction on income from members and also on income from investments in other co-operative societies/banks under Section 80P(2)(d). The matter was remitted to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds deposited in a bank is an enhancement of profits from the principal activity of providing credit facilities. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving its status as a primary agricultural credit co-operative society. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to decide appeals on merits even when disposing of them ex-parte.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without properly adjudicating the delay condonation petition. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits even when dismissing it ex-parte for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal on merits.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be unreasonable and lacking in natural justice as it failed to address the assessee's submissions. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with the statements recorded from lenders and an opportunity to cross-examine them. This procedural lapse prevented the assessee from properly establishing the genuineness of the loans.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify under which limb of Section 270A the underreporting and misreporting occurred. The penalty proceedings were initiated without adhering to the prescribed procedures, making them unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits even when disposing of them ex-parte. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from co-operative banks, as per the Kerala High Court judgment. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with directions to consider bifurcation of income.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to prove its claim as a primary agricultural co-operative society, following a Supreme Court decision.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without considering the merits and failed to record proper notice service. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P because the claim was not made in a return filed within the time prescribed by Section 139(1) or 139(4). The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham, which held that the Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. judgment was per incuriam.