ITAT Panaji Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the foreign exchange fluctuation loss, allowing it as a revenue expenditure. However, the Tribunal's decision on the treatment of share sale gains as business income versus capital gains is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the foreign exchange fluctuation loss, allowing it as a revenue expenditure. However, the Tribunal's decision on the treatment of share sale gains as business income versus capital gains is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the penalty. It noted that the penalty was levied on amounts sustained after appellate proceedings and that the assessee had not appealed against certain confirmed additions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80IA for the majority of the claim, noting the consistent allowance in previous years and the assessee's role as a developer. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that the other income was not derived from the eligible business and thus not eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80IA for the majority of the claim, noting the consistent allowance in previous years and the assessee's role as a developer. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that the other income was not derived from the eligible business and thus not eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the addition for cessation of liability was incorrect as the amount was offered to tax in a later year. It also found that the disallowances for transportation charges and donation were unwarranted as these were not claimed as expenses by the assessee. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted for lack of satisfaction and proximate relationship between expenditure and exempt income.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the purchase of shares in FY 2011-12, and the AO's assumption that purchases were made in the current year was without basis. Therefore, the long-term capital gains should be treated as exempt.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of the eligible business, prior to the set-off of carried forward losses and depreciation. Therefore, the AO's action of setting off losses against the 10B eligible income was incorrect.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, finding a lapse in the AO's recording of satisfaction. For the Section 41(1) addition, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and a coordinate bench ruling, allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) even for income earned from associated members.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and a coordinate bench ruling, allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) even for income earned from associated members.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision which considered both the Citizen Co-op Society and Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank judgments, allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities with associated members were eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished all particulars of the claim, and merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, since the issue was admitted as a substantial question of law by the High Court, it was considered debatable, making penalty not leviable.