The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds is business income of a credit society. Such income qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that adding both cash deposits and withdrawals may result in double taxation. The case was remanded for fresh examination with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that loss from discontinued operations cannot be restricted without evidence. Fully supported expenses must be allowed under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that eligibility for Section 80P depends on actual activities, not the society’s name. Deduction was allowed as the society provided credit facilities to members.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80P on bank interest cannot be re-examined once earlier order attained finality. The issue was restricted to allowing related expenses under Section 57.
The issue involved revision of assessment where income was declared under Section 44AD. The Tribunal held that absence of books makes Section 68 inapplicable. The takeaway is that revision cannot be based on lack of records not required by law.
The issue involved addition made without providing a hearing. The Tribunal held that once such action is invalid, further directions cannot be issued. The takeaway is that procedural violation nullifies subsequent directions.
The case examined whether a 2345-day delay could be condoned based on reasons like miscommunication and financial hardship. The Tribunal held that vague explanations and negligence do not qualify as sufficient cause, leading to dismissal of appeals.
The issue was whether CSR expenditure qualifies for deduction under section 80G. The Tribunal held that deduction is allowable as there is no specific prohibition except for certain funds.
The Tribunal held that delayed verification of an e-filed return is only a procedural lapse. Deduction under Section 80P cannot be denied when the return was filed within the due date.
