Loading ITAT cases…
164 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal decided that the addition of Rs. 88,00,792/- on account of unexplained increase in liabilities was not justified as it represented deposits from members in the normal course of business. It also held that the disallowance of Rs. 26,86,479/- under Section 80P was incorrect, as the society was eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal found that the appeal had become infructuous because the assessee had already re-submitted their application. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of Section 80P deduction in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year was decided in favour of the assessee. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the assessee and the subsequent process of bringing legal heirs on record. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that while an addition might be justified under Section 69B, a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied due to ambiguity regarding the assessment year in which the cash was received by the vendors.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 270A did not specify the particular sub-section or clause under which it was imposed, making it impossible for the assessee to provide a specific reply. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits with cooperative banks/scheduled banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, following decisions of coordinate benches. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow this exemption.
The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method of service as per Section 282(1) of the Act. Therefore, the notices were not properly served on the appellant.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits with cooperative banks/scheduled banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, following decisions of coordinate benches. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow this exemption.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits made with another cooperative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was found to be in conformity with the settled position of law.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with other cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in concurrence with the AO's order without considering the merits of the case, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that leased line/data link charges do not constitute 'technical services' as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, no TDS was required to be deducted on such payments.
The Tribunal held that leased line/data link charges do not constitute 'technical services' as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, no TDS was required to be deducted on such payments.