ITAT Raipur Judgments — August 2022

During the hearing, the assessee's representative filed a letter seeking to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view on eligibility was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary order was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary order was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to provide the 'reasons to believe' to the assessee, who had complied with the notice and requested them, vitiated the assessment proceedings. This failure denied the assessee their statutory right to object to the reopening.

The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition, holding that the cash deposits represented sale proceeds accounted for in the assessee's books. The Tribunal upheld this, noting the AO accepted the sales while simultaneously treating the deposits as unexplained credits, leading to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also ruled that income from paddy procurement and other activities are eligible for deduction under the respective sub-sections of Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in imposing penalty for both 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' as these are distinct defaults. The penalty was quashed because the AO failed to specify the exact nature of the default in the show cause notice and imposed penalty for both when the assessment order only initiated proceedings for concealment.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to provide the 'reasons to believe' to the assessee, who had complied with the notice and requested them, vitiated the assessment proceedings. This failure denied the assessee their statutory right to object to the reopening.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in imposing penalty for both 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' as these are distinct defaults. The penalty was quashed because the AO failed to specify the exact nature of the default in the show cause notice and imposed penalty for both when the assessment order only initiated proceedings for concealment.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not impose penalty for both concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars for a single addition, as these are distinct defaults. The Tribunal also noted that the show cause notices were vague.

The tribunal heard the parties and, with no objection from the revenue, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to provide the 'reasons to believe' to the assessee, who had complied with the notice and requested them, vitiated the assessment proceedings. This failure denied the assessee their statutory right to object to the reopening.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of land occurred on the date of the sale agreement as possession was handed over and full consideration was paid. The retrospective amendment to Section 50C(1) was applied, requiring the use of the stamp duty valuation on the agreement date for capital gains calculation.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circulars, appeals with a tax effect below a specified monetary limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in this case was below the limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that payments of employee contributions to EPF and ESI made before the due date of filing the return, even if after the statutory due date, are allowable. This is based on recent judicial pronouncements and the fact that the relevant amendments to Section 43B and 36(1)(va) are applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm 10% of the loan amount as income, citing the Settlement Commission's findings for the group and the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The disallowance of interest on this loan was also confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat 10% of the loan amount as the assessee's income, citing the modus operandi of the group and the findings of the Settlement Commission. The disallowance of interest on this loan was also confirmed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.