Loading ITAT cases…
217 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal, considering a similar order for a related appeal (ITA 2090/Pun/2024) where the matter was set aside for denovo adjudication, decided to remit the present issue of 80G(5) approval back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits and restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee to present their case, with a direction to decide the issue based on facts and law.
The Tribunal confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. The assessee's persistent non-compliance and failure to provide supporting evidence for its claims were the primary reasons.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's argument regarding technical difficulties faced by office bearers. It held that the dismissal of the appeal by CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay was unjustified and caused hardship. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the failure of their tax consultant. Condoning the delay of 202 days, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the failure of their tax consultant. Condoning the delay of 202 days, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without properly considering the merits of the case and in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that it would be judicially expedient and in the interest of justice to restore both matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). For ITA No. 2739/2024, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to consider the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) afresh and decide on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to provide the requisite details and documentary evidence on the appointed date, failing which the Ld. CIT(E) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order. Similarly, for ITA No. 2740/2024, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes, and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to reconsider the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) after granting a hearing and allowing the assessee to present its case with supporting documents. The Tribunal noted that the facts and submissions in both appeals were identical, except for the specific section under which approval was sought.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with cooperative and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). The disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal. It held that the issue of claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in other co-operative banks is no longer res integra. The Tribunal relied on multiple decisions of its co-ordinate benches, including a decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14. The reasoning was that even though co-operative banks might not be eligible for deduction under Section 80P due to Section 80P(4), they continue to be co-operative societies. Therefore, interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits and restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee to present their case, with a direction to decide the issue based on facts and law.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. It held that the impugned issue is no longer res integra, citing various decisions of co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal and other judicial forums. The Tribunal specifically referred to its own order in the assessee's case for AY 2017-18, which in turn relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits made out of surplus funds with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The reasoning was that the Karnataka High Court, while referring to the Supreme Court decision in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., held that the ratio of the Supreme Court decision was not applicable to interest income on investments, as such income falls under Section 80P(2)(d) and not Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the ground raised by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and Section 80G(5)(iii) were rejected by the CIT(E) due to non-compliance with notices seeking information. The assessee contended that they were not granted adequate opportunity and could provide the necessary documents if given another chance. The revenue's representative conceded to this. The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the interest of justice, decided to restore the matters to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to re-adjudicate the applications on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard and allowing them to present their case and submit the required details and documentary evidence. The assessee is cautioned that failure to comply on the appointed date will allow the CIT(E) to pass an appropriate order as per law. The issue of whether the assessee's activities were genuine or complied with other laws was not decided on merits by the Tribunal, as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's argument regarding technical difficulties faced by office bearers. It held that the dismissal of the appeal by CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay was unjustified and caused hardship. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the interest income earned from co-operative banks and nationalized banks. The reasoning was based on several judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank, which clarified that deduction under Section 80P is available to all cooperative societies providing credit facilities to their members, even for non-agricultural loans and loans to nominal members, but not on profits attributable to transactions with non-members. The Tribunal also cited decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society and Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India vs. CIT, which held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Furthermore, referencing the case of Vaveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. vs. CCIT, the Tribunal noted that interest income from nationalized/other banks also qualifies for Section 80P deduction. The Tribunal also acknowledged a cleavage of judicial opinion among High Courts but followed the view favorable to the assessee, citing decisions of the Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts, and a coordinate bench of the Pune ITAT. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and allowed the assessee's Section 80P deduction claims in full.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The reasons for reopening did not link the information to the assessee's specific transactions with sufficient belief that income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and deposited the requisite challan. Since no dispute remained, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee argued Section 56(2)(x) is applicable to purchasers and not sellers. Both parties agreed to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to provide an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption), granting the assessee a final opportunity to submit the required details to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to comply without adjournment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding that the appeal was not decided on merits before the CIT(A)/NFAC, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay of 24 days and without deciding the case on merits. Considering the prevailing circumstances and the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision and a CBDT circular, held that the incorrect mention of the section code is a curable defect. The order of the CIT was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after condoning the delay and providing an opportunity of hearing, considering the assessee's explanation for the initial delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Considering that the assessee claims an opportunity of being heard was not adequately granted, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the 8 appeals, noting no objection from the Department's representative.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The assessee was directed to file submissions without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to submit details and clarifications without seeking any adjournment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the facts and interest of justice, the Tribunal restored both matters to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and decide afresh.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the 8 appeals, noting no objection from the Department's representative.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the 8 appeals, noting no objection from the Department's representative.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decided the issue after giving due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 addresses difficulties, including filing under wrong section codes, and provides relief. Relying on its own previous decisions where such errors were considered curable technical mistakes, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's rejection order. The case was remanded to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication, treating the application as filed under the correct section and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing requisite details and documents.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was primarily due to the lack of registration under Section 12A. Therefore, the Tribunal restored both issues (12A registration and 80G approval) to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the 8 appeals, noting no objection from the Department's representative.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the 8 appeals, noting no objection from the Department's representative.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the 8 appeals, noting no objection from the Department's representative.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the 8 appeals, noting no objection from the Department's representative.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the 8 appeals, noting no objection from the Department's representative.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be granted one final opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee is directed to provide all requisite details without seeking adjournments.