Loading ITAT cases…
15 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the rectification order under Section 155 was invalid as no notice was issued to the assessee. For the reopened assessment, the Tribunal found that the AO had validly initiated proceedings under Section 147 to include the spouse's income share as per Section 5A.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not fully accounted for the assessee's cash withdrawals. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,50,000 out of the Rs. 5,38,000 in issue was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order under Section 155 was invalid as no notice was issued to the assessee. For the reopened assessment, the Tribunal found that the AO had validly initiated proceedings under Section 147 to include the spouse's income share as per Section 5A.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments. It upheld the lower authorities' decision to add the interest income, stating that preliminary and pre-operative expenses could not be set off against other income before business commencement.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments. It upheld the lower authorities' decision to add the interest income, stating that preliminary and pre-operative expenses could not be set off against other income before business commencement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative credit society and eligible for deduction under Section 80P on its interest income. The landmark decision of the Apex Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the Totgars case, stating it did not rule on Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It followed its own previous order for the same assessee for an earlier assessment year, which had accepted similar grounds.
The Tribunal held that cooperative societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from cooperative banks, following previous decisions of its coordinate bench.
The Tribunal held that the distinction between nominal and regular members is not significant in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Tribunal also ruled that interest income earned by a co-operative society from another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), irrespective of whether the investment is long-term or short-term.
The Tribunal upheld the penalties, finding that the assessee failed to provide reasonable cause for the delay in TDS compliance. The assessee admitted to delayed TDS payments and did not prove that record seizure prevented them from maintaining accounts on an e-platform.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs as unexplained unsecured loans. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of these loans.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Citing Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found no distinction between a co-operative credit society and a primary co-operative bank for the purpose of this deduction.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous applications as withdrawn. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the impugned reassessment was quashed.