ITAT Panaji Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is indeed a 'cooperative society' as defined under Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the revision directions by the Principal CIT were incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principle of substantial justice. It held that the assessee's status as a cooperative society should be determined by its registration, not the nature of its membership, following the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated by the CBDT circular. The circular was made applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing a CBDT circular and a Supreme Court judgment. It held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) enhances business income eligible for Chapter VI-A deduction, and the status of members (nominal or otherwise) does not preclude Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that the existence of nominal members does not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), following a subsequent Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the disallowance of deduction was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society, could not be denied Section 80P deduction by treating it as a cooperative bank or considering nominal members, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's argument regarding Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance based on a CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the existence of nominal members does not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), following a subsequent Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the disallowance of deduction was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, and the presence of nominal members does not disqualify it from claiming deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal also followed CBDT Circular No. 37/2016 to allow the claim regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is indeed a 'cooperative society' within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is indeed a 'cooperative society' within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is indeed a 'cooperative society' within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is indeed a 'cooperative society' within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is indeed a 'cooperative society' within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with TDS provisions as required by law. Since the assessee had already satisfied the impugned taxes and interest, the appeals lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with TDS provisions as required by law. Since the assessee had already satisfied the impugned taxes and interest, the appeals lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is indeed a 'cooperative society' within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of interest on NPAs, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowing prior period interest expenditure through Section 154 rectification is debatable and outside its scope. It also noted that the interest paid was already admitted as income by the recipient society, indicating no loss of revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that foreign exchange fluctuation losses on loans taken for revenue purposes are allowable as per the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. The penalty was also deleted as it was based solely on a survey declaration without supporting material.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that foreign exchange fluctuation losses on loans taken for revenue purposes are allowable as per the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. The penalty was also deleted as it was based solely on a survey declaration without supporting material.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) did not provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to comply with the notice. Therefore, the order rejecting the approval was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with TDS provisions as required by law. Since the assessee had already satisfied the impugned taxes and interest, the appeals lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with TDS provisions as required by law. Since the assessee had already satisfied the impugned taxes and interest, the appeals lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that a "Souharda" cooperative society registered under state law is indeed a "cooperative society" within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Act. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the conditions for the retrospective applicability of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) were not met, as the recipient firm had not furnished all the required details. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s order to be non-speaking and restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the subsequent registrations obtained by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with TDS provisions as required by law. Since the assessee had already satisfied the impugned taxes and interest, the appeals lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is indeed a 'cooperative society' within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with TDS provisions as required by law. Since the assessee had already satisfied the impugned taxes and interest, the appeals lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the existence of nominal members does not disentitle a co-operative society from claiming deduction under Section 80P, citing a Supreme Court decision. Regarding Section 68, the Tribunal found no justification for adding deposits made in customers' accounts to the assessee's income, as the deposits were made by the customers themselves.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) or Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The ratio of Totagar's case was distinguished.

The assessee filed letters seeking permission to withdraw all seven appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal requests. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.

The assessee filed letters seeking permission to withdraw all seven appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal requests. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed, implying that the lower appellate authority's decision to allow rectification of defects in Form 15G/15H was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) or Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The ratio of Totagar's case was distinguished.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal found the lower authorities' reasoning for disallowance to be without merit, citing recent Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition itself was deleted by a separate order of the Tribunal, the penalty levied on that addition cannot survive. The penalty proceedings are unsustainable when the basis for the addition is removed.

The tribunal held that a cooperative society is distinct from a cooperative bank, and Section 80P(4) is not applicable to cooperative societies. Therefore, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed, implying that the lower appellate authority's decision to allow rectification of defects in Form 15G/15H was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not sufficiently examine the nature of the payments and the specific clauses of the agreements. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition itself was deleted by a separate order of the Tribunal, the penalty levied on that addition cannot survive. The penalty proceedings are unsustainable when the basis for the addition is removed.

The assessee filed letters seeking permission to withdraw all seven appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal requests. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is distinct from a cooperative bank, and Section 80P(4) is not applicable to cooperative societies. Therefore, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not sufficiently examine the nature of the payments and the specific clauses of the agreements. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not sufficiently examine the nature of the payments and the specific clauses of the agreements. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The assessee filed letters seeking permission to withdraw all seven appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal requests. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not sufficiently examine the nature of the payments and the specific clauses of the agreements. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not sufficiently examine the nature of the payments and the specific clauses of the agreements. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not sufficiently examine the nature of the payments and the specific clauses of the agreements. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not sufficiently examine the nature of the payments and the specific clauses of the agreements. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.