Loading ITAT cases…
21 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the disputed issues, along with additional evidence filed by the assessee, to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be given an opportunity for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were beyond the permissible limitation period as per Section 149, following the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were beyond the permissible limitation period as per Section 149, following the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that cooperative societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for interest earned on investments with cooperative banks and idle funds held with nationalized banks. The disallowance by the Assessing Officer was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowability of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for cooperative societies is well-settled in favour of the assessee by numerous judicial precedents. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered cooperative societies eligible for Section 80P deduction. It also found that the assessee provided credit facilities to its members, including associate and nominal members, as recognized by the Act.
The Tribunal held that remuneration paid to partners is allowable based on book profit, which includes income declared during a survey. Regarding bank differences, it was found that most accounts belonged to partners, and the remaining difference was nominal, thus not warranting an addition to the firm's income.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer did not make additions for the original reasons for reopening and failed to issue a fresh notice for the new issue (disallowance of Section 80P deduction), the reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This is based on numerous judicial precedents, including decisions from coordinate benches and the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained cash credit was not warranted as the assessee had explained the nature and source with complete evidence. Similarly, the addition for unexplained cash deposit was deleted after considering the assessee's cash in hand from other business and agricultural activities.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present additional evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and adjudicate the matter afresh.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer did not make additions for the original reasons for reopening and failed to issue a fresh notice for the new issue (disallowance of Section 80P deduction), the reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the need for substantial justice over technical considerations and relying on Supreme Court judgments. For one appeal, the CIT(A) order was set aside to decide the appeal afresh after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the need for substantial justice over technical considerations and relying on Supreme Court judgments. For one appeal, the CIT(A) order was set aside to decide the appeal afresh after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the need for substantial justice over technical considerations and relying on Supreme Court judgments. For one appeal, the CIT(A) order was set aside to decide the appeal afresh after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the need for substantial justice over technical considerations and relying on Supreme Court judgments. For one appeal, the CIT(A) order was set aside to decide the appeal afresh after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty on maintenance costs, barbed wire fencing, and professional fees, finding them to be bona fide claims or incorrect claims made inadvertently, not deliberate concealment. However, the penalty was sustained on caretaker expenses and interior advances as these were considered to be furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex-parte. Considering the assessee's request for an opportunity to present its case and the impracticality of treating entire bank deposits as income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, finding that the appeal was dismissed without considering the issues. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case.