ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative society from deposits with a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It ruled that such income remains eligible despite Section 80P(4), and addition made by CPC was deleted.
ITAT held that delay in filing Form 10B is only a procedural lapse and not fatal to exemption. It ruled that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied where audit report is eventually filed.
ITAT set aside the addition made under Section 68 due to incomplete verification of a large gift transaction. It remanded the case for fresh examination with proper evidence and opportunity.
The case addressed whether reassessment can proceed before disposing of objections. The Tribunal ruled that such action breaches mandatory legal procedure, leading to quashing of the assessment.
The Revenue challenged allowance of bad debts due to lack of NCLT evidence. The Tribunal held that post-amendment law requires only write-off in books, not proof of irrecoverability. The ruling reinforces that accounting write-off alone is sufficient for deduction.
ITAT held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied via rectification under Section 154 for alleged delay in filing Form 10B. The issue involved disputed facts and prior acceptance, making Section 154 invocation invalid.
ITAT held that interest under Section 220(2) must be recomputed based on reduced assessed income after rectification under Section 154. However, it clarified that interest will still run from the original demand date.
Tribunal set aside addition as the assessee established genuineness of loans through documentary evidence. However, it remanded the case to verify whether loans were repaid.
Dazzler Confectionery Company Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Deleted Due to Defective Notice – No Specific Charge Mentioned AO levied penalty of ₹44.79 lakh u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowances relating to pre-operative expenses & 35D deduction. Penalty notice u/s 274 was issued using “concealment OR furnishing inaccurate particulars” without specifying the exact charge. Assessee […]
The Tribunal clarified that possession is not a mandatory condition for claiming Section 54 exemption. It held that investment within the prescribed timeline satisfies the legal requirement.
