ITAT Panaji Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the set-off of carry forward losses pertaining to AY 2007-08 was justified as it exceeded the permissible period of eight assessment years. However, the claim for deduction of interest income on enhanced compensation under Section 57(iv) was allowed, relying on a judicial precedent.

The Tribunal, relying on various High Court judgments and coordinate bench decisions, held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from deposits with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for deduction, with the total aggregate claim including Section 80P(2)(d) deduction restricted to the original claim made under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidences, and did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that Section 80AC was not applicable for A.Y. 2015-16 for claiming deduction under Section 80P, as its provisions were extended to cooperative societies for Section 80P from A.Y. 2018-19 onwards. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction even if the return was filed late.

The ITAT Panaji Bench dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing that the situs of the AO (Mumbai) falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. It granted leave to the assessee to file the appeal before the appropriate ITAT bench in Mumbai.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte orders were passed in violation of natural justice principles due to insufficient notice and opportunity to the assessee. The adjudications also suffered from non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) failed to provide reasonable opportunities to the assessee for hearing and proper adjudication, violating principles of natural justice. The NFAC also did not follow the prescribed procedure for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) failed to provide reasonable opportunities to the assessee for hearing and submitting evidence, violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The NFAC's ex-parte orders were found to be irregular.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its deposits with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. For interest income from scheduled banks, the issue was restored to the AO for adjudication based on specific directions.

The tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were premature and bad in law because the first appellate authority confirmed the penalty without first adjudicating the quantum appeal. The determination of under-reporting of income must precede the levy of penalty. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside and remanded to the Ld. NFAC for fresh adjudication after the disposal of the quantum appeal.

The tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It relied on previous tribunal decisions distinguishing the Supreme Court's Totgar's Cooperative Sales Society Ltd. judgment.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation of delay application and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The tribunal emphasized providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, considering principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that stamp duty for mining lease renewal is capital in nature and eligible for depreciation, while registration fees are revenue expenditure. It upheld the PCIT's revision regarding stamp duty but vacated the PCIT's actions concerning the set-off of IOS income against business losses and the denial of carried forward losses, as these issues were not properly confronted to the assessee in the show cause notice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessees with the specific negative observations or dissatisfactions before rejecting their applications, thereby denying them a real and effective opportunity to be heard. Citing principles of natural justice and statutory requirements, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide at least three effective opportunities to each assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessees with the specific negative observations or dissatisfactions before rejecting their applications, thus denying them a real and effective opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide at least three effective opportunities to each assessee.

The tribunal held that the CIT(E), by proceeding to examine the merits of the case, implicitly condoned the delay in filing the applications. It further ruled that the assessee's activity of providing taekwondo training, especially to underprivileged students and girls for self-defense, falls within the definition of 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Act, as it involves developing knowledge, skill, mind, and character. Therefore, the rejections were set aside.

The tribunal held that the CIT(E), by proceeding to examine the merits of the case, implicitly condoned the delay in filing the applications. It further ruled that the assessee's activity of providing taekwondo training, especially to underprivileged students and girls for self-defense, falls within the definition of 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Act, as it involves developing knowledge, skill, mind, and character.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessees with the specific negative observations or dissatisfactions before rejecting their applications, thereby denying them a real and effective opportunity to be heard. Citing principles of natural justice and statutory requirements, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with directions to provide at least three effective opportunities to each assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to provide sufficient reasonable opportunities to the assessees to address the deficiencies and confront negative observations before rejecting their applications. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the cases for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide at least three effective opportunities to each assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, granting the assessee another opportunity to file the application with the correct section code. It directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application in accordance with the law, emphasizing principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for dealings with nominal/associate members back to the AO for verification, citing that such members are recognized by governing laws. It allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks, distinguishing it from interest from scheduled banks.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessees with the specific negative observations or dissatisfactions before rejecting their applications, thus denying them a real and effective opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide at least three effective opportunities to each assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Ld. DR had no objections. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.