Loading ITAT cases…
267 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from its investments held with a cooperative bank. The PCIT's revision order was found to be in error.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits made in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order allowing such deduction was not erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the PCIT's revision order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that there was no adjudication on merits regarding the assessee's objects and activities. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The reasoning of the lower authorities was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative bank, being a cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income derived from its investments with other cooperative banks. The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to disallow this claim.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from deposits made in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and potentially 80P(2)(a)(i). Therefore, the assessment order allowing the deduction was not erroneous, and the PCIT's revisionary powers were wrongly invoked.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income derived from its investments held with a cooperative bank. The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to disallow this claim.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits made in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the assessment order allowing such deduction was not erroneous.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks and scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that there was no adjudication on merits regarding the assessee's objects and activities. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to disallow this deduction, as the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.
The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's arguments as the assessee had provided documentary evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal noted that the recipient's cross-examination was not afforded to the assessee and that the ledger account showed the sum as a continuing liability.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to disallow this deduction.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the first appellate authority violated the principle of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity of hearing before confirming the addition. The matter was remanded for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the assessment order allowing the deduction was not erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument that her commission income did not exceed the threshold for maintaining books of account was without merit. The turnover in the case satisfied the Rs. 1 crore threshold, justifying the requirement to maintain books.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income derived from its investments held with a cooperative bank. The PCIT's revision order was set aside, and the Assessing Officer's assessment order was restored.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not be treated as an aggrieved party when the CIT(A) had relied on a remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer which supported the assessee. Therefore, the Revenue's grounds of appeal were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal restored both issues back to the CIT(Exemption) for re-deciding the matter afresh. The Tribunal noted there was no categorical finding doubting the assessee's objectives or activities on merits.
The Tribunal restored both issues back to the CIT(Exemption) for re-deciding the matter afresh. The Tribunal noted there was no categorical finding doubting the assessee's objectives or activities on merits.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The AO needs to verify the remittances of the interest income back to the government.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the assessee's object clauses and activities and provide effective opportunities for hearing.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's penalty show cause notice failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This procedural defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income derived from its investments held with a cooperative bank. The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to disallow this claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, considering the period of Covid-19 and the assessee's lack of awareness of e-mail service. The matter was restored to the NFAC for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the information was indeed uploaded by the assessee. Therefore, the CIT's rejection based on non-receipt of information was incorrect.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument for re-computation of disallowances based on actual sums. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the correct amounts to be disallowed.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had not dealt with the merits of the appeal and had wrongly dismissed it for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation disallowance should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, especially since additional evidence was claimed to have been filed. The disallowance for delayed deposit of employee's PF/ESI contribution was upheld following the Supreme Court's decision. Other issues were also remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the notice of hearing from the NFAC was not served on the assessee, preventing them from presenting their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 1,22,11,400/- for unsubstantiated cash expenses and Rs. 35,03,354/- for expenses related to Mr. Rafiq Lilgar. The issue of Rs. 60,35,065/- was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. A partial disallowance of Rs. 99,200/- was upheld for commission payments made in cash without proper details.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation disallowance should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, especially since additional evidence was claimed to have been filed. The disallowance for delayed deposit of employee's PF/ESI contribution was upheld following the Supreme Court's decision. Other issues were also remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, dismissed the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal clarified that the transaction of receipt of unsecured loans and advances from Bhawarlal M. Jain and Group was merely accommodation entries, not a valid transaction.
The Tribunal clarified that the transaction of receipt of unsecured loans and advances from Bhawarlal M. Jain and Group was merely accommodation entries, not a valid transaction.
The Tribunal held that Domex e-Data Pvt. Ltd. was functionally dissimilar to the assessee's ITeS activities due to its diversified operations including software development and KPO/BPO services. Consequently, Domex e-Data Pvt. Ltd. was excluded from the list of comparables.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument for re-computation of disallowances based on actual sums. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the correct amounts to be disallowed.
The Tribunal clarified that the transaction of receipt of unsecured loans and advances from Bhawarlal M. Jain and Group was merely accommodation entries, not a valid transaction.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation disallowance should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, especially since additional evidence was claimed to have been filed. The disallowance for delayed deposit of employee's PF/ESI contribution was upheld following the Supreme Court's decision. Other issues were also remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation disallowance should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, especially since additional evidence was claimed to have been filed. The disallowance for delayed deposit of employee's PF/ESI contribution was upheld following the Supreme Court's decision. Other issues were also remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal clarified that the transaction of receipt of unsecured loans and advances from Bhawarlal M. Jain and Group was merely accommodation entries, not a valid transaction.
The Tribunal clarified that the transaction of receipt of unsecured loans and advances from Bhawarlal M. Jain and Group was merely accommodation entries, not a valid transaction.
The Tribunal clarified that the transaction of receipt of unsecured loans and advances from Bhawarlal M. Jain and Group was merely accommodation entries, not a valid transaction.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Act does not mandate the partnership deed to be filed with the return of income for allowing partner's remuneration. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.