Loading ITAT cases…
66 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), following a coordinate bench decision. Additionally, any disallowances made would form part of the business income on which Section 80P deductions are admissible.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee on short-term deposits maintained for operational funds and to meet contingencies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The judgment in Totgars Co-operative Society was distinguished as not applicable to the present facts.
The Tribunal, to meet the ends of justice and following principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the withdrawal of their appeals and the revenue representative had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the withdrawal of their appeals and the revenue representative had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The AO is directed to determine the correct amount of disallowance, considering the assessee's submissions and revised tax audit report.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was not leviable as the notices were issued during the Nationwide Pandemic, and there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The penalty order was also found to be cryptic.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication on certain grounds, especially considering the tax treatment of similar Regional Rural Banks and the High Court's judgment in Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank. For AY 2015-16, a specific ground regarding interest on TDS was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit. Both parties requested to withdraw their respective appeals and cross-objections.
The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of land should be treated as capital gains, not business income, and allowed the claim for indexation. The charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was confirmed as consequential.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication on certain grounds, especially considering the tax treatment of similar Regional Rural Banks and the High Court's judgment in Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank. For AY 2015-16, a specific ground regarding interest on TDS was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is invalid as there was no enabling provision in section 200A at that time. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was reversed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), following a coordinate bench decision. Additionally, any disallowances made would form part of the business income on which Section 80P deductions are admissible.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file an affidavit explaining the delay with proper evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite granting opportunities. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to explain the loan credit by providing legal evidence, including financial statements and bank statements. The addition for the loan and the consequential interest disallowance were deemed unjustified and unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E for returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision in section 200A was not in effect. Therefore, the levy was invalid.
The Tribunal held that levying penalty under Section 271D was not justified in this case, considering the assessee was a small agriculturist and the transaction involved a small piece of land. The penalty was therefore set aside.
The ITAT condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause due to the CIRP. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to pass a speaking order and had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which is not permissible. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite granting opportunities. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee society on deposits made from operational funds is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the case from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars' Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
The assessee's authorized representative stated that they did not wish to press the appeal and requested its withdrawal. The revenue representative did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee society from deposits made with banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's decision in The Totgars' Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the deduction under Section 80P should be allowed on the enhanced income resulting from the disallowance of expenses. The decision was based on various judicial pronouncements, including the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the co-operative society from deposits with nationalized banks is attributable to its business and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). It further held that the AO erred in estimating income from construction activity without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts or established accounting method.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted that the property transaction was cancelled by a court order, rendering the sale deed and related documents fictitious. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions based on this submission.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was engaged in educational activities like distributing prizes to students and providing yoga training. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed the grant of registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was engaged in educational activities like distributing prizes to students and providing yoga training. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed the grant of registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the assessee was transferred and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not make proper inquiries. In the interest of natural justice, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, to uphold principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the addition under Section 68, allowed the disallowance of interest expenses related to business purposes, and allowed the disallowance of interest expenses claimed under Section 57.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving opportunities. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income from deposits and commission income earned by the assessee society are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as they are incidental to its business activities. The decision relied on previous judgments of the Tribunal and High Court.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It also held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given one opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act at that time. The levy was therefore considered invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was acting merely as a conduit for bank transactions and that the nature and source of the cash deposits were adequately explained. The addition made under Section 69A was found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A at that time. The levy was considered invalid.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained due to the ill-health and subsequent demise of the trust's President. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to expenditures otherwise allowable under Sections 30 to 38. Since the expenditure was capital in nature and not claimed as a deduction, no disallowance could be made under Section 143(1)(a). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the cooperative society from deposits in a nationalized bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it arises from its business activities. The Tribunal followed its own coordinate bench's decision and distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the disputed amounts was indeed below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue was permitted to withdraw its appeals.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) had not properly considered the explanation regarding the communication issues and the circumstances leading to the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the disputed amounts was indeed below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue was permitted to withdraw its appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the disputed amounts was indeed below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue was permitted to withdraw its appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the disputed amounts was indeed below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue was permitted to withdraw its appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the disputed amounts was indeed below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue was permitted to withdraw its appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It also held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given one opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It also held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given one opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It also held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given one opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It also held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given one opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).