The High Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its limited powers under Section 254(2) by recalling a final order on merits. Once the recall was struck down, the original favourable order stood automatically restored.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from fixed deposits with co-operative banks remains deductible under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Such interest is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members, even after the Totgars ruling.
The Tribunal observed that rejection of audited books and disallowance of labour charges must be backed by concrete defects. Purely ad-hoc estimations based on minimum wages were held improper.
The issue was whether advance money from a failed land deal could be taxed as income. The Tribunal held that without clear forfeiture, section 56(2)(ix) does not apply. Key takeaway: forfeiture is mandatory to tax advances.
The issue was whether a ₹3.05 crore disallowance under section 14A could stand without nexus to exempt income. The ITAT held that only a reasonable amount with clear linkage can be disallowed, capping it at ₹10 lakh.
The issue was whether section 153C could extend beyond six years without discovery of an undisclosed asset of ₹50 lakh or more. The ITAT held that in absence of such asset-based satisfaction, extended jurisdiction is invalid.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could be invoked to deny 80P deduction on interest from co-operative bank deposits. The ITAT held that such revision is invalid when the AO has taken a legally settled and permissible view.
Swaroop Kudalkar Vs Assessment Unit (ITAT Pune) Ex-parte Assessment & NFAC Dismissal Set Aside in Legal Heir Case; Matter Remanded for Fresh Adjudication – ITAT Pune The Pune Bench of the ITAT, in Swaroop Kudalkar (Legal Heir of Late Roshan Kudalkar) vs. Assessment Unit (ITA No.2132/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21, order dated 18-12-2025), set aside the ex-parte […]
The tribunal held that interest earned on deposits with Cooperative Banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), overturning the earlier disallowance.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure disallowed as business expense can still qualify for deduction under Section 80G. The key takeaway is that both provisions operate at different stages of computation.
