Loading ITAT cases…
107 orders · Page 2 of 3
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 Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.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 Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.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 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 Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.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 Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.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 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 Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.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 Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.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 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The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn.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 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 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 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 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 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) or Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The ratio of Totagar's case was distinguished.
The Tribunal held that the definition of 'member' under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act includes nominal members. Therefore, income derived from activities with such members is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vii).
The Tribunal held that the definition of 'member' under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act includes nominal members. Therefore, income derived from activities with such members is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vii).
The Tribunal held that the definition of 'member' under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act includes nominal members. Therefore, income derived from activities with such members is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vii).
The Tribunal held that the definition of 'member' under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act includes nominal members. Therefore, income derived from activities with such members is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vii).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and failed to comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the department had presented a complete case. Therefore, a lump sum disallowance of 25% of the disputed expenses was deemed appropriate, with the condition that it would not set a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the NFAC's decision, holding that the society's activities fell under Section 80P(2)(a)(vii) and that nominal members should be considered 'members' as per the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal found the NFAC's reasoning, supported by Supreme Court precedents, to be correct.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from investments with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). A cooperative bank is also considered a cooperative society for this purpose.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the department had presented a complete case. Therefore, a lump sum disallowance of 25% of the disputed expenses was deemed appropriate, with the condition that it would not set a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the definition of 'member' under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act includes nominal members. Therefore, income derived from activities with such members is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vii).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately discuss the expenses considered for enhancement. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Therefore, the Tribunal was not inclined to entertain the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal was not inclined to entertain the appeal.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the AO to be given an opportunity to comment on any notification relied upon by the appellate authority. Since this opportunity was not provided, the matter was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the AO to be given an opportunity to comment on any notification relied upon by the appellate authority. Since this opportunity was not provided, the matter was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the AO to be given an opportunity to comment on any notification relied upon by the appellate authority. Since this opportunity was not provided, the matter was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the AO to be given an opportunity to comment on any notification relied upon by the appellate authority. Since this opportunity was not provided, the matter was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the addition for the suppressed sales amounting to Rs. 3,37,62,949/-, based on the admissions made during the survey. However, it set aside the addition related to unsecured loans and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of declarations made under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) and their nexus with the credits in the firm's accounts.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on a loan taken to acquire the asset or for its improvement can be considered as part of the cost of acquisition. However, in this case, the loan was taken for payment of compensation to legal heirs, not for acquisition or improvement of the land sold.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by cooperative societies from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and also under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ground not arising from the assessment order was dismissed, and the delay in filing was condoned.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by cooperative societies from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and also under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ground not arising from the assessment order was dismissed, and the delay in filing was condoned.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by cooperative societies from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and also under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ground not arising from the assessment order was dismissed, and the delay in filing was condoned.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by cooperative societies from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and also under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ground not arising from the assessment order was dismissed, and the delay in filing was condoned.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by cooperative societies from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and also under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ground not arising from the assessment order was dismissed, and the delay in filing was condoned.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by cooperative societies from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and also under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ground not arising from the assessment order was dismissed, and the delay in filing was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by cooperative societies from other cooperative banks was covered by judicial precedents. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by cooperative societies from other cooperative banks was covered by judicial precedents. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by cooperative societies from other cooperative banks was covered by judicial precedents. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by cooperative societies from other cooperative banks was covered by judicial precedents. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by cooperative societies from other cooperative banks was covered by judicial precedents. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the employees' share of ESIC and PF deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts is justified. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. which clarified that such deposits must be made before the statutory due dates under the respective Acts for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by cooperative societies from other cooperative banks was covered by judicial precedents. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by cooperative societies from other cooperative banks was covered by judicial precedents. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by cooperative societies from other cooperative banks was covered by judicial precedents. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.