ITAT Panaji Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal condoned delays and remitted issues like member categories and demonetization cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for re-verification. It upheld deductions for interest income from deposits with cooperative banks under Section 80P(2)(d) and clarified that 'Souharda' societies qualify as 'co-operative societies' under Section 2(19). The revenue's cross-appeal challenging a CIT(A) decision to allow 80P(2)(d) for interest from co-operative banks was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned delays in five appeals. For issues related to Section 80P deductions concerning different classes of members and percentages of nominal/associate members, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. Deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks were allowed, and 'Souharda' societies were recognized as 'cooperative societies' under Section 2(19). The issue of unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 during demonetization was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication. For interest income from nationalized/scheduled/non-cooperative banks, deduction was restricted to income forming part of gross total income and partly allowed for statistical purposes, while interest from cooperative banks was fully allowed. The Revenue's appeal challenging the CIT(A)'s allowance of deduction for interest income from co-operative banks was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned delays in filing appeals. Issues concerning member classification and the 15% nominal/associate member limit were remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-verification. Interest income from cooperative banks and investments in cooperative societies was held deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). Societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act were confirmed as 'co-operative societies' for 80P purposes. The issue of demonetization deposits under Section 68 was remanded for the assessee to provide substantiation. For interest from nationalized/scheduled banks, it was allowed under 80P(2)(a)(i) if attributable to providing credit facilities to members, otherwise, interest from non-cooperative banks was taxed as 'other sources' and some aspects remanded. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. Issues regarding member classification and unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication. Interest income from cooperative banks was held eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Interest income from nationalized/scheduled banks was held eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members, otherwise taxed under Section 57. 'Souharda' societies were recognized as 'cooperative societies' under Section 2(19) of the IT Act, making them eligible for 80P deductions.

The Tribunal condoned delays and remitted issues concerning member classification and unexplained cash deposits during demonetization back to the Assessing Officer for re-verification. It held that interest income from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), and Souharda societies are cooperative societies under Section 2(19), thus eligible for 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction for interest from scheduled banks if from working capital. However, interest from other than cooperative banks was to be taxed as income from other sources.

The Tribunal condoned delays in filing appeals. Issues related to member classification (regular, nominal, associate) and nominal members exceeding 15% were remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification. Deductions for interest income from cooperative banks were allowed for assessees based on judicial precedents, recognizing cooperative banks as species of cooperative societies. Souharda societies were held to be cooperative societies under Section 2(19), making them eligible for Section 80P deductions. Cash deposits during demonetization (Section 68) were remanded for re-adjudication, granting assessees a chance to provide evidence. Interest income from Souharda credit niyamitas was mandatorily allowed. For interest from nationalized/scheduled/non-cooperative banks, credit cooperative societies could claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if attributable to business, while for multipurpose societies, such income was taxable as 'income from other sources' under Section 57, and this issue was partly remanded. The Revenue's appeal challenging the allowance of deduction for interest income from cooperative banks was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned delays in filing appeals and for several issues, set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, remanding them to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing these grounds for statistical purposes. Deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned on deposits with cooperative banks were allowed based on judicial precedents, upholding that such income is eligible for deduction. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and it was clarified that while interest from cooperative banks is deductible, interest from nationalized/other non-cooperative banks is generally taxed as income from other sources for certain societies.

The Tribunal largely remanded issues concerning member classification and demonetization deposits back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication and verification, allowing the assessees' appeals for statistical purposes. It held that interest income from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), recognizing societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act as co-operative societies per Section 2(19). However, interest income from nationalized or other non-cooperative banks was deemed not eligible for Section 80P(2)(d) deduction and treated as income from other sources.

The Tribunal remanded issues concerning member classification, nominal/associate members exceeding 15% of regular members, and cash deposits during demonetization back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication. It held that interest income from deposits with cooperative banks and income for societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act 1997 are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) or 80P(2)(a)(i) based on judicial precedents. The revenue's appeal challenging the allowance of deduction for interest income on fixed deposits with co-operative banks was dismissed, while the assessees' appeals regarding interest from nationalized/scheduled/non-cooperative banks were partly allowed for statistical purposes, restricting deduction to income forming part of gross total income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. It remitted issues regarding member classification (regular, nominal, associate) and demonetization deposits (Section 68) to the Assessing Officer for re-verification. Crucially, the Tribunal held that interest income from deposits with cooperative banks and investments in other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), and Souharda societies qualify as cooperative societies. While interest from scheduled banks was allowed if attributable to business, interest from other nationalized banks was denied, and the Revenue's appeal challenging deductions for interest from cooperative banks was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. Issues related to member classifications and unexplained cash deposits during demonetization were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication. The Tribunal allowed the deduction of interest income from deposits with cooperative banks under Section 80P(2)(d) and affirmed that societies registered under the Souharda Sahakari Act are cooperative societies under Section 2(19), eligible for deductions. For interest from nationalized banks, the matter was remanded for further examination, with such income generally being taxable as 'other income' if not attributable to core business.

The Tribunal largely ruled in favor of the assessee cooperative societies. It remitted several issues, including those related to member classification and demonetization deposits, to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. It explicitly held that interest income from cooperative banks is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d) and confirmed that "Souharda" societies are cooperative societies eligible for 80P benefits. However, interest from nationalized banks was generally held to be taxable as income from other sources.

The Tribunal condoned delays in filing assessee appeals. Issues concerning multiple member classes and excess nominal members were remitted to the AO for re-verification and adjudication, being allowed for statistical purposes. Deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest from cooperative banks were allowed, confirming that "Souharda" societies are cooperative societies under Section 2(19) and eligible for deductions. The issue of unexplained demonetization deposits was also remitted to the AO for further verification and adjudication. While interest from cooperative societies to Souharda niyamits under 80P(2)(d) was allowed, interest from nationalized/scheduled banks under 80P(2)(a)(i) was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific disallowance for interest from non-cooperative banks under 80P(2)(d). The revenue's appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned delays in filing appeals and remanded or partly allowed most assessee appeals for statistical purposes, requiring fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer on issues like membership criteria and demonetization deposits. It affirmed the eligibility of cooperative societies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest from cooperative banks and held that 'Souharda' societies qualify as cooperative societies under Section 2(19). The Revenue's appeal, challenging the allowance of 80P(2)(d) deduction for interest from cooperative banks, was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals. Issues regarding nominal/associate members and interest from nationalized/scheduled banks were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification. For interest earned from deposits with cooperative banks, the Tribunal held that such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), upholding the assessee's claim and dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this point. "Souharda" societies were recognized as "co-operative societies" under Section 2(19) of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. Issues concerning nominal/associate members and unexplained cash deposits were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication. The Tribunal ruled that interest income from cooperative banks and other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), allowing these grounds in favor of the assessee. It also confirmed that 'Souharda' societies qualify as cooperative societies under Section 2(19). The issue of interest from nationalized/scheduled banks was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the AO to restrict the deduction to income forming part of gross total income. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. It largely favored the assessees, allowing deduction for interest earned from cooperative banks under Section 80P(2)(d) and confirming that 'Souharda' societies qualify as cooperative societies for 80P. Several issues, including the definition of members and demonetization deposits, were remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-verification, while Revenue's appeal against allowing deduction for interest from cooperative banks was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing certain appeals and remanded several issues back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, particularly concerning the classification of members and unexplained cash deposits, allowing these appeals for statistical purposes. However, the Tribunal explicitly allowed deductions for interest earned from deposits with cooperative banks under Section 80P(2)(d), citing judicial precedents. The Revenue's appeal challenging the allowance of deduction for interest income on fixed deposits with cooperative banks was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. It remanded the issues concerning the classification of society members, the proportion of nominal/associate members, the treatment of demonetized cash deposits under Section 68, and interest from nationalized/scheduled/non-co-operative banks to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with opportunities for the assessees to provide further evidence. For interest earned by co-operative societies from deposits with other co-operative banks or co-operative societies, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal also affirmed that societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, qualify as "co-operative societies" under Section 2(19) of the ITA, and for such societies directed the AO to allow deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief for interest from co-operative banks.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessees' appeals and dismissed the revenue's cross-appeal. It held that deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) are allowable for interest income from cooperative banks, and cooperative societies registered under the Souharda Act are eligible for 80P deductions. Issues related to different member classes and demonetization deposits were remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and fresh adjudication. For interest from nationalized/scheduled banks, deduction under 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowed if attributable to the cooperative society's business, but not under 80P(2)(d) for interest from other non-cooperative banks, which would be taxed as income from other sources.

The Tribunal condoned delays in filing appeals. Issues related to different member classes and demonetization deposits were remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication and verification. Deduction for interest from cooperative banks and Souharda credit sahakari niyamits was allowed under Section 80P(2)(d). 'Souharda' societies were recognized as cooperative societies eligible for Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction. Interest from nationalized/scheduled banks was partly allowed, with interest from cooperative banks being deductible and interest from other than cooperative banks being taxed as income from other sources. The revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned delays in filing appeals. For issues concerning member classification and registration under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering that 'Souharda' societies are eligible for 80P benefits. Interest income from deposits with cooperative banks was held to be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). For interest from nationalized/scheduled banks, it was eligible for 80P(2)(a)(i) for credit cooperative societies, but for multipurpose societies, it was taxable as 'other income' under Section 57. The issue of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization was also remanded for re-examination, granting the assessee an opportunity to provide further evidence. The revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and remitted issues concerning member classification and the proportion of nominal/associate members to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was allowed for interest income from cooperative banks, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this point. For interest from nationalized/scheduled banks, it was held deductible under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if it constituted business income for credit cooperative societies, but taxable as 'other income' under Section 57 for multipurpose societies. The issue of cash deposits during demonetization under Section 68 was also remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal largely remanded issues regarding member types, nominal member limits, and demonetization-related cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing these appeals for statistical purposes. It held that interest income from deposits with cooperative banks and other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act were recognized as 'co-operative societies' for Section 80P eligibility, leading to the allowance of related appeals. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals. Issues concerning member classifications and nominal/associate members exceeding 15% were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Deduction for interest income from cooperative banks and for Souharda societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act 1997 were allowed. The matter of demonetization cash deposits was remanded for re-examination. Deduction for interest income from nationalized/scheduled banks was partly allowed, with interest from co-operative banks allowed under section 80P(2)(d) but interest from nationalized banks taxed as income from other sources.

The Tribunal largely remitted issues concerning member classification and demonetization deposits back to the Assessing Officer for re-verification and fresh adjudication. However, it held that interest income from deposits with cooperative banks and registration under state-specific 'Souharda' acts qualified cooperative societies for Section 80P deductions. The Revenue's appeal challenging a deduction for interest from cooperative banks was dismissed, while interest from nationalized banks was generally disallowed under 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal remanded issues concerning member structure and demonetized cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication. It ruled that interest income from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), recognizing "Souharda" societies as cooperative societies under Section 2(19). For interest from nationalized/scheduled banks, deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowed for income attributable to business activities, but interest from non-cooperative banks not attributable to business was treated as "income from other sources." The revenue's cross-appeal challenging the allowance of 80P(2)(d) for cooperative bank interest was dismissed.

The tribunal, after perusing the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal and finding no reasons to reject the request, permitted the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal in-limine as 'infructuous', stating that each proceeding under the Income Tax Act is distinct and the outcome of one does not automatically determine another. The NFAC was legally mandated by Sections 251(1)(a) and 250(6) to adjudicate the issues on merit. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication and a speaking order.

The Tribunal condoned the 43-day delay in filing the appeal, finding 'sufficient cause'. It held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, as the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1) of the Act mandates setting aside a section 144 assessment for de-novo assessment by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remanded the case back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order as per section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal noted the assessee had a pending condonation application u/s 119(2)(b) with the CIT(E). It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the outcome of the condonation application before deciding the exemption claim under Section 11, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC failed to properly adjudicate the first issue regarding the validity of the disallowance under section 14A and entirely omitted the third issue concerning the computation of disallowance without reducing non-exempt income investments, thereby contravening section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to decide grounds not previously adjudicated by the first appellate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order concerning these non-adjudicated issues and remitted the matter back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing, despite the assessee raising valid grounds challenging the denial of section 80P deduction. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to submit evidence and information.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A and without giving the Assessing Officer opportunity for examination or rebuttal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with directions to deal with the disputed disallowances/additions according to law and issue speaking orders.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, failing to record satisfaction for admission, and denying the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut such evidence, or to conduct a remand inquiry. The Tribunal noted the absence of crucial bank statements from karigars to verify the alleged cashback. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a de-novo adjudication, with directions to properly deal with the disputed disallowances/additions in accordance with law and pass speaking orders.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A)'s orders were infirm as they admitted additional evidence without complying with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity for comment or rebuttal. Citing various judgments, the ITAT emphasized the need to follow proper procedure for admitting additional evidence and allowing cross-examination. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases for de-novo adjudication by the CIT(A) with directions to address the disputed disallowances in accordance with law.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by admitting additional evidence without proper procedure and without providing the AO an opportunity to examine or rebut it. Citing precedents regarding cross-examination and Rule 46A compliance, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or comment on it. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a direction to deal with the disputed disallowances/additions in accordance with law and pass separate speaking orders.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, noting that such evidence was crucial for a fair decision and could not be presented before lower authorities. Consequently, the disputed issues, including the additions under Section 69A and interest income, were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with an opportunity to submit the new information.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in partly confirming the addition of estimated profit on securities transactions. Considering the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, which included substantial new documents, the Tribunal decided to admit the additional evidence. The disputed issues, along with the additional evidence, were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity of hearing for the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) but emphasized the principles of natural justice. It decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case regarding the Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted voluminous documentary evidence online to the CIT(A) which was overlooked, constituting a violation of the principles of natural justice. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, directing consideration of all evidence already on record and the issuance of a speaking order under section 250(6).

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to produce letters/certificates related to the subsidized interest scheme as additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. Considering this new evidence vital for assessing the eligibility of the Section 80P deduction, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO. The AO is directed to consider these additional evidences for their taxability and eligibility while re-computing the 80P deduction.

The ITAT condoned the 89-day delay in filing the appeal before itself. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the matter for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to file a condonation of delay application and consider it pragmatically, and then decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, but noted that the assessee's AR claimed a good case on merits and sought an opportunity to present evidence. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). It remitted the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present its case and cooperate in submitting information.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of addition u/s 68 back to the AO, directing re-verification and an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence, noting the CIT(A) had overlooked submissions. For the denial of u/s 80P deduction, the Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents, ruled that Section 80AC and Section 80A(5) were not applicable for AY 2017-18 and earlier, allowing the deduction even if the return was filed late. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this point and directed the AO to allow the 80P claim.

The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's grounds of appeal and claim of having material evidence, noting that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without fully considering the merits. Upholding principles of natural justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to present its case.