The ITAT Bangalore clarified that the presence of nominal and associate members does not automatically disqualify a cooperative society registered under the KCS Act from claiming Section 80P deduction. The case was remanded for the AO to verify if associate members complied with the 15% statutory ceiling under the KCS Act, upholding the principle that the AO cannot question the validity of the society’s registration itself.
The issue was whether a large cash holding was unexplained money under Section 69A post-demonetization. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, accepting that the cash originated from earlier, disclosed bank withdrawals. Key Takeaway: The burden of proof to disprove the source from prior withdrawals rests with the Department; mere suspicion isn’t enough for an addition.
ITAT Mumbai allowed deduction of interest expenditure, emphasizing that as long as there is a nexus between the borrowing and the income earned, deduction cannot be denied. Disallowance based on investment in shares was found unjustified.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that first proviso to Section 50C(1) is curative and retrospective, applying from A.Y. 2003-04. This allows taxpayer to compute capital gains based on stamp duty value prevailing on earlier MOU date (agreement date) instead of later, higher registration value, since part consideration was paid before registration.
ITAT Chennai upheld that immovable property transfers within family through registered settlement deeds are exempt under Section 56(2)(x). The AO’s view that such transfers were non-bona-fide was rejected.
Additions of unsecured loans were sustained where creditworthiness was not proved, and relief upheld only for creditors who responded to notices under section 133(6) or furnished adequate documentation. Assessee’s case was reopened under section 148, where AO noticed unsecured loans aggregating to ₹14.94 crore from 164 creditors. On verification.
The ITAT Chennai allowed a charitable trust to rectify its mistake of applying for provisional 80G registration, remanding the case for reconsideration under the correct clause for a five-year registration.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted the penalty imposed on Bharatkumar Jaishinh Soni, ruling that his claim for full leave encashment exemption was a bona fide legal interpretation, not a deliberate misreporting of income. The Tribunal held that an arguable claim, where all facts are disclosed, does not warrant the severe 200% penalty under Section 270A(9).
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the addition of ₹1.77 Cr as unexplained cash credit, directing the Assessing Officer to verify evidence, including the assessee’s claim of exempt agricultural income.
ITAT Mumbai held that in absence of any contrary inference by Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] in the TP analysis, ad hoc disallowance cannot be restored towards the international transaction of technical service and other transaction. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
