ITAT held that stamp duty value on registration date cannot be applied where allotment occurred earlier. Allotment date determines valuation under Section 56.
The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court rulings to hold that co-operative banks qualify as co-operative societies for deduction purposes. It allowed deduction on interest income under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that entire TDS credit can be allowed to one co-owner if the other has not claimed it. It remanded the matter for verification to prevent double credit.
The ITAT held that no addition can be made under Section 69A when the source of cash is explained through bank withdrawals. Doubts about utilisation alone cannot justify treating it as unexplained money.
The Tribunal held that commission income cannot be computed on internal or circular banking transactions. It reduced the commission rate from 1.75% to 0.47% and directed recomputation after verification. The ruling emphasizes accurate determination of real in-come.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that co-operative banks are also co-operative societies for this purpose.
The ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has conducted detailed inquiries and adopted a plausible view. The Tribunal ruled that a mere change of opinion by the PCIT does not render the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial.
The Tribunal held that dividend received from identifiable mutual funds through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained income. It ruled that proper documentation and traceability negate applicability of Section 68.
The ITAT held that a 29-day delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural lapse and cannot be the sole basis for denying exemption under Sections 11 and 12. It ruled that substantial compliance and availability of the audit report before processing must be considered. The AO was directed to reassess the exemption claim accordingly.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where income variation arises from genuine computational mistakes. It ruled that voluntary correction during assessment indicates absence of intent to conceal income. The penalty was there-fore deleted.
