ITAT Mumbai held that securitisation trusts, cannot be assessed as an AOP, are revocable within the meaning of section 63 of the Income Tax Act and hence income is not taxable in the hands of trust. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant previous year. Accordingly, no further disallowance u/s. 14A is called for.
ITAT Mumbai held that even if Section 11 exemption is denied due to lack of registration, the Assessing Officer cannot tax entire gross receipts without examining expenditure. Only net income, if any, can be brought to tax.
The Tribunal held that year of acquisition is determined by payment and handing over of possession under Section 2(47)(v), not by later registration date. Earlier CII was allowed for capital gains computation.
The Tribunal held that examining the donor’s creditworthiness and seeking income-tax returns at the registration stage is beyond the scope of section 12AB. Registration cannot be denied on such grounds when charitable objects and activities are genuine.
ITAT Bangalore held that mere long-pending sundry creditors cannot be taxed under Section 41(1) unless there is actual remission or legal cessation of liability. Continued reflection of liabilities in books prevents addition as income.
ITAT Bangalore held that a Souhadra Sahakari registered under the Karnataka Souhadra Sahakari Act qualifies as a co-operative society under Section 2(19). Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowed, and related additions were deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that timely filing is mandatory for Chapter VI-A deductions and belated returns cannot claim Section 80P benefits. It followed binding High Court precedent and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority exceeded jurisdiction by restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the deemed dividend addition on merits as raised in appeal.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits made during demonetization cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68 if sufficient cash balance is recorded in regular books of account.
