ITAT Bangalore held that the co-operative societies providing credit facilities to its members is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, income earned on account of providing credit facilities is allowable as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i).
Assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. However, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay and without adjudicating the issues on merits. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
ITAT Bangalore in the case of cash deposit during demonetization period directed assessee to file KYC of the depositors and accordingly directed AO to verify the same and allow if found in order.
Assessee filed his original income tax return on 31-08-2019 and revised the return on 19-06-2020. He submitted Form 67 to claim the foreign tax credit but AO denied the FTC claim due to the late filing of Form 67.
Liability to capital gains had not arisen in the assessment year 2017-18 as occupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial portion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion but in the assessment year 2018-19 on receipt of possession.
ITAT Bangalore held that confirmation not containing PAN cannot be reason for addition as the confirmations were available with the AO and if he had any doubt regarding he could have again verified with the creditors. Addition in respect of creditors deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that filing of form 10B is only directory and the same is not mandatory. Hence denial of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act for delay in filing of form 10B unjustified.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay in filing of an appeal due to election code of conduct and ill health of staff is sufficient cause and accordingly condonation of 25 days in filing of an appeal granted.
ITAT Bangalore ruled on Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju foreign tax credit claim, denied due to late filing of Form 67 after the due date for the AY 2021-22.
CBDT had issued instructions/notification for examining the specific cases regarding cash deposits during the demonetisation period. However, both the lower authorities had not done so and therefore, the matter was remanded for re-examination.
