The ITAT Ranchi held that a retired non-government employee was entitled to exemption under Section 10(10AA)(ii) for the entire leave encashment amount in view of CBDT Notification No. 31/2023. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the claim.
The ITAT Bangalore held that interest earned on compulsory statutory deposits made under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act constitutes business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It set aside the orders denying the deduction.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained solely on information received from the Investigation Wing without independent enquiry or supporting evidence. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition after finding no direct link between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entries.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 54B after the Assessing Officer, in a remand report, verified that the land was used for agricultural purposes. The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) could not disregard those findings without contrary evidence.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that the entire sale consideration could not be assessed as short-term capital gains without examining the cost of acquisition and improvement. It remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the available records.
The ITAT Hyderabad accepted the assessee’s explanation that supporting documents could not be produced because the accountant was unavailable due to his son’s serious illness. It admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter for fresh assessment.
ITAT Pune held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was approved by the Principal Commissioner instead of the authority prescribed under Section 151(ii). The reassessment order was declared void ab initio.
ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with a co-operative bank remained attributable to its business of providing credit facilities. The deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) was therefore allowed.
Bangalore ITAT held that allegations of capitation fee collections could not justify denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 without proof of statutory violations. The Tribunal followed binding precedent in the assessee’s own case and upheld its charitable status.
ITAT Pune held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority prescribed by law. The notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were quashed.
