Loading ITAT cases…
66 orders · Page 2 of 2
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 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 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 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 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 ITAT partly allowed the appeal, finding that a substantial portion of the disallowance related to a prior year's opening balance and timing differences that the assessee successfully reconciled. However, the remaining disallowance for other creditors was sustained due to insufficient explanation from the assessee.
The Tribunal, relying on its own precedent and a jurisdictional High Court decision, held that interest income derived by a credit co-operative society from operational funds maintained for liquidity is "income from business." It distinguished the Supreme Court's *Totgars* case, concluding that such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
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 deemed invalid.
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 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 the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was done solely for verification purposes, citing various High Court judgments. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that current year profits should not be included in accumulated profits for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e). The addition was restricted to the actual accumulated profits available on the date of the advance.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, emphasizing that the assessee should not seek unjustified adjournments.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. To uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
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 deemed invalid.
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 deemed invalid.