ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal held that a cooperative credit society is distinct from a cooperative bank and is entitled to deduction under Section 80P. The court found that the assessee's activities did not disqualify it from the deduction.

The Tribunal held that a cooperative credit society is distinct from a cooperative bank and is entitled to deduction under Section 80P. The court found that the assessee's activities did not disqualify it from the deduction.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds to cover its investments, it is presumed that investments were made from non-interest bearing funds. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the payments made for ESIC and EPF were for the purpose of business expediency and should be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1). The disallowance under Section 14A was upheld as fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, considering the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. and the assessee's contentions regarding the FRP regime.

The Tribunal decided to proceed without the assessee's presence. Citing the CBDT circular on revised monetary limits for appeals, the Tribunal deemed the appeal withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider the modalities of price fixation and profit distribution.

The Tribunal held that prudential norms issued by the RBI are applicable to co-operative banks and interest on NPAs is not taxable on accrual basis. The Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Shri Mahila Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. was followed.

The tribunal clarified that the assessee's appeal was actually dismissed, not allowed as erroneously mentioned in the original order. This corrigendum rectifies the incorrect outcome.

The Tribunal held that the draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not follow the prescribed procedure. Consequently, all other grounds became academic.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The disallowance on account of excess cane price was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not follow the prescribed procedure. Consequently, all other grounds became academic.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that a Gazette Notification allows insurance to be part of banking business. Since the Assessing Officer had considered the issue and taken a possible view, the Pr. Commissioner's revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2010-11 due to low tax effect. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere based on the parity of facts with a sister concern's case previously decided by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner is only required to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the trust's activities and objects, not the application of income at the registration stage. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal restored the issue of excess cane price paid to sugarcane suppliers to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The issue of bank guarantee commission was also restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration with the additional evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2010-11 due to low tax effect. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere based on the parity of facts with a sister concern's case previously decided by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they involved pure questions of law. It found that the notice under Section 143(2) was not served on the assessee within the stipulated time, and the assessee had raised this objection before the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.