ITAT Panaji Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that diesel generators do not qualify for higher depreciation as renewable energy devices. However, the provision for leave encashment, being an ascertained liability calculated on an actuarial basis, should not be added back for book profit computation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 14 crore addition for AY 2014-15, stating no concept of 'deemed income' applied. For AY 2015-16, it was held that since the income was already offered by the assessee, it could not be taxed again. The disallowance of cash sales and business expenses were also deleted, finding the AO's findings not specific enough.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 14 crore addition for AY 2014-15, stating no concept of 'deemed income' applied. For AY 2015-16, it was held that since the income was already offered by the assessee, it could not be taxed again. The disallowance of cash sales and business expenses were also deleted, finding the AO's findings not specific enough.

The Tribunal held that the appellant had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS due to the debatable nature of the issue and reliance on legal advice. The penalty under Section 271C was directed to be deleted based on the provisions of Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the appellant had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS due to the debatable nature of the issue and reliance on legal advice. The penalty under Section 271C was directed to be deleted based on the provisions of Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the appellant had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS due to the debatable nature of the issue and reliance on legal advice. The penalty under Section 271C was directed to be deleted based on the provisions of Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the appellant had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS due to the debatable nature of the issue and reliance on legal advice. The penalty under Section 271C was directed to be deleted based on the provisions of Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the appellant had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS due to the debatable nature of the issue and reliance on legal advice. The penalty under Section 271C was directed to be deleted based on the provisions of Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the appellant had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS due to the debatable nature of the issue and reliance on legal advice. The penalty under Section 271C was directed to be deleted based on the provisions of Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for departmental appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit are to be treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of its appeal. Consequently, both the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's cross-appeal were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for departmental appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit are to be treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of its appeal. Consequently, both the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's cross-appeal were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for departmental appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit are to be treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by cooperative societies from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by cooperative societies from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by cooperative societies from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by cooperative societies from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by cooperative societies from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by cooperative societies from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by cooperative societies from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by cooperative societies from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by cooperative societies on investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The restriction under Section 80P(4) was not applicable in this context.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence that the cessation of liability of Rs. 2,01,609/- occurred in the assessment year in question. Therefore, the addition made under Section 41(1) was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as co-operative banks fall within the definition of 'co-operative society'. For the deduction under Section 80P(2)(e), the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on tenant confirmations.

The Tribunal held that income derived by a cooperative society from investments with other cooperative societies is exempt under Section 80P(2)(d). It found the reasoning of the lower authorities to be unsustainable but noted that the source of the entire interest income was unclear.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as its grievance no longer survived. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative, thus retrospective. Since the payee firm had included the amount in its income and paid tax, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal found that while the AO made additions on specific grounds, he did not provide a proper calculation for his own claim. The CIT(A)'s calculation was also considered casual. Therefore, the AO was directed to reconsider the calculation based on available records and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling, stating it did not specifically address Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the gross income, as reflected in the assessee's books, is not hypothetical and should be the basis for calculating the deduction under Section 11(1)(a). The assessee is eligible for deduction on the amount calculated on gross income, as per the Supreme Court's pronouncement.

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Cooperative Sales Society Ltd. was distinguished as it pertained to Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and not Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars, stating it did not cover Section 80P(2)(d).

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the delay was not deliberate and was caused by a sufficient cause, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal also found that the penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) were not specific, as irrelevant portions were not struck off, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the delay was not deliberate and was caused by a sufficient cause, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal also found that the penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) were not specific, as irrelevant portions were not struck off, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the delay was not deliberate and was caused by a sufficient cause, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal also found that the penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) were not specific, as irrelevant portions were not struck off, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.