Loading ITAT cases…
285 orders · Page 3 of 6
The tribunal held that the amendment inserting clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, it was not applicable to defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that cooperative societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned from banks, following favorable High Court precedents. It also held that Section 80P(4) does not affect eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income parked with a cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that cooperative societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The insertion of Section 80P(4) does not affect eligibility for deduction on investments with other cooperative societies.
The Tribunal held that cooperative societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The insertion of Section 80P(4) does not affect eligibility for deduction on investments with other cooperative societies.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The CIT(A) had disallowed 50% of the addition made by the AO on account of CMRF, relying on a previous order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), could only be applied for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy for AY 2013-14 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that cooperative societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned from banks, following favorable High Court precedents. It also held that Section 80P(4) does not affect eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income parked with a cooperative bank.
The tribunal held that the amendment inserting clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, it was not applicable to defaults committed prior to this date.
The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for AY 2013-14 (FY 2012-13) was not justified.
The tribunal held that the amendment inserting clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, it was not applicable to defaults committed prior to this date.
The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it was not applicable to defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the bonus deduction was not allowable as it was not paid within the specified time. Similarly, the employee's contribution to PF/ESI was not deductible as it was not deposited before the statutory due dates, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that cooperative societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned from banks, following favorable High Court precedents. It also held that Section 80P(4) does not affect eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income parked with a cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that cooperative societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned from banks, following favorable High Court precedents. It also held that Section 80P(4) does not affect eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income parked with a cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date. The demand notices were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing for computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of interest paid on a loan taken specifically for acquiring a plot of land, as it was not a business expenditure. For other investments, the AO was directed to ascertain the extent to which borrowed funds were utilized.
The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, it was not applicable to defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings and the additions made under Section 68. It found that the assessee failed to substantiate the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, particularly concerning the actual creditor.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had incurred expenditure exceeding the provision made for the remaining work. The provision was a reasonable estimation for probable expenses in the subsequent financial year.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted due enquiries and accepted the agricultural income based on earlier assessments and submitted details. The PCIT failed to provide specific reasons why the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that while claiming exemptions requires filing in the return, claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A is directory. Therefore, a claim made during assessment proceedings, even if not in the return, should be allowed on merits.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying the fee under Section 234E was introduced prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy for a period prior to this date was without authority of law.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying the fee under Section 234E was introduced prospectively from June 1, 2015, by an amendment to Section 200A. Therefore, the levy for a period prior to this date was without authority of law.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding the source of cash deposits during demonetisation, especially concerning recoveries from bad debts in earlier years. The PCIT's order to revise the assessment was therefore justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A is illegal.
The Tribunal held that its previous order did not suffer from any apparent mistake. The assessee's arguments were already considered and rejected in the detailed discussion of the substantive grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The impugned orders of the PCIT were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The impugned orders of the PCIT were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The impugned orders of the PCIT were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The impugned orders of the PCIT were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The impugned orders of the PCIT were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The impugned orders of the PCIT were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The impugned orders of the PCIT were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide proof that the payee accounted for the interest as income and paid taxes. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was upheld. However, the disallowance was restricted to the amount not already disallowed by the assessee in its revised return.
The Tribunal held that the gift was genuine, supported by evidence like a notarized gift deed, cheque, pay orders from Wall Street Exchange, LLC, and the donor's passport. The three ingredients of Section 68 (identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transaction) were proved.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year, held that the interest income earned from deposits with a bank was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. Therefore, the impugned orders of the PCIT could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, referencing previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The impugned orders of the PCIT were found unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income. The impugned orders passed by the PCIT under Section 263 cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The impugned orders of the PCIT were not sustained.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear with all necessary documents and present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, following previous decisions of the Pune Benches. The impugned orders of the PCIT were not sustained.