Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding the delayed PF/ESIC contribution, directing verification of a specific amount based on an EPFO letter. The disallowance under Section 14A was upheld. The claim for Section 80G deduction was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify it.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction before invoking Section 14A, as mandated by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding the delayed PF/ESIC contribution, directing verification of a specific amount based on an EPFO letter. The disallowance under Section 14A was upheld. The claim for Section 80G deduction was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify it.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that a previous coordinate bench had already decided the issue of proportionate deduction for the same project in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding the open terrace issue as not having been adjudicated by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks, being registered cooperative societies, are eligible for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with them. The revisional order by the Principal CIT was deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative bank, being a cooperative society, continues to be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from its investments in cooperative banks. The Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments with a cooperative bank, as a cooperative bank is a cooperative society. The Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) allowing such disallowances had prospective effect and could not be applied to the assessment year 2020-21. The delay in filing the lower appeal was also condoned.
The ITAT restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a decision on merits and granting the assessee opportunities to present their case.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the claim and did not make the correct claim in the original return. The Tribunal also noted that for Assessment Year 2018-19 onwards, claims for deduction under Section 80P must be made in the return filed under Section 139(1), and not in a revised return.
The Tribunal held that its jurisdiction is determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer. Since the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Pune bench, the appeal and cross-objection were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Pune bench lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the assessee was assessed in Akola and the relevant jurisdiction lay with the Nagpur bench. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that the Pune bench lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as the assessee's location and assessment jurisdiction fall under the purview of the Nagpur bench.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on fixed deposits with cooperative/scheduled banks is part of its business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had under-reported income as the reassessed income was greater than the assessed income. The assessee's plea that the tax consultant was responsible was rejected as the assessee had signed revised returns claiming excess deductions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had under-reported income as the reassessed income was greater than the assessed income. The assessee's plea that the tax consultant was responsible was rejected as the assessee had signed revised returns claiming excess deductions.
The Tribunal held that the object of constructing houses, even for low-income groups, is a business activity and not a charitable purpose as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act. Furthermore, the unregistered lease agreement and the earning of lease income, which was not incidental to the trust's objects, also disqualified it from registration.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the submissions filed.
The Tribunal reduced the ad hoc disallowance of expenses from 10% to 5% due to the lack of specific examination and verification. The Tribunal remanded the Section 43CA addition back to the NFAC for de novo adjudication after considering the Assistant Valuation Officer's report.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. Therefore, the NFAC's order was set aside.
The tribunal found that the NFAC's order was cryptic and overlooked documents showing the department had accounted for TDS and calculated interest. The tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be calculated from the beginning of the assessment year, and up to the date of refund receipt, if the return was filed within the extended due date.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine or rebut it. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.