Loading ITAT cases…
126 tribunal orders from the Panaji bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 126 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the distinction between short-term and long-term investments is irrelevant for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) if the income is from another cooperative society. The CIT(A)'s finding that interest from investments with other cooperative banks for periods less than one year is not eligible for deduction was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the distinction between short-term and long-term investments is irrelevant for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) if the income is from another cooperative society. The CIT(A)'s finding that interest from investments with other cooperative banks for periods less than one year is not eligible for deduction was reversed.
The Tribunal held that since the appellant society was registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and did not possess a banking license from the RBI, it should be considered a cooperative society, not a cooperative bank. Therefore, it qualifies for the exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the distinction between short-term and long-term investments is irrelevant for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) if the income is from another cooperative society. The CIT(A)'s finding that interest from investments with other cooperative banks for periods less than one year is not eligible for deduction was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the appellant is a cooperative society registered under the relevant Act and does not have a banking license from the RBI. Therefore, it cannot be classified as a cooperative bank and is eligible for the Section 80P(2)(a)(i) exemption.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society as it is registered under the relevant Act and does not have a banking license from the RBI. Therefore, it is eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable.
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are also cooperative societies and interest income earned from them is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The lower authorities were not justified in denying this claim.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be computed based only on investments yielding exempt income. It also held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added back to book profits for Section 115JB computation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society, not having a banking license from the RBI, cannot be classified as a cooperative bank. Therefore, Section 80P(4) is not applicable, and the society is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the assessee's books of account.
The Tribunal held that income derived by a cooperative society from investments with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The reasoning of the lower authorities that interest from a cooperative bank is not eligible was found to be incorrect as a cooperative bank is also a cooperative society.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and that the assessee's rights were not adjudicated. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the file of the AO for adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence before the CIT(A) to support the Section 80P(2)(d) claim. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, as it does not have a banking license from the RBI. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P and the provisions of Section 194A are not applicable.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from investments held with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that a cooperative bank is also a cooperative society.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the cooperative society on investments made with other cooperative banks is eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that dairy products are eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) only from AY 2011-12. Therefore, the denial of deduction for AY 2009-10 was correct, but the addition should be restricted to the actual amount claimed.
The Tribunal held that an undertaking engaged in dairy products is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) only from AY 2011-12. Therefore, the denial of deduction for AY 2009-10 was correct, but the addition should be restricted to the actual claim made by the assessee.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits, stating it was unreasonable and unjustified. The tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s finding and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without examining the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after considering the relevant Supreme Court judgments and providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA from the statute book meant that no additions could be made under that section. Following precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, the additions made on account of domestic transfer pricing were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed documents, but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not considered them. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and reasoned order after considering the documents and affording opportunities to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.