The case examined taxation of a charitable entity when registration under Section 12A was unsettled. While scrutiny selection was upheld, the assessment was remanded to await the outcome of registration proceedings.
The tribunal set aside the disallowance of deduction on interest earned from cooperative bank deposits. Consistent judicial precedents confirm eligibility under Section 80P(2)(d).
The decision limits tax exposure by holding that unexplained cash deposits during demonetization should be assessed on an estimated profit basis when business records are accepted.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could be invoked when the Assessing Officer had accepted a legally possible view. The Tribunal held that where two views exist and the AO adopts one, the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial.
The Assessing Officer inferred undisclosed loans by applying a notional interest rate to declared interest income. The Tribunal ruled that additions under section 69B cannot rest on assumptions ignoring the business model.
The disallowance of interest income was set aside as co-operative banks fall within the definition of co-operative societies. The ruling confirms full deductibility of such interest under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from investments with co-operative banks falls within Section 80P(2)(d). Such income is deductible, subject to verification of the source and bifurcation.
The Tribunal held that where reassessment is based solely on search material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under section 153C. Reopening under section 147 was held to be without jurisdiction and quashed.
The dispute concerned treatment of frequent cash deposits collected from customers for recharge services. The Tribunal affirmed that income should be estimated at 8% where records and compliance were lacking.
The issue was whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when bogus purchases are disallowed on an estimated basis. The Tribunal held that estimation does not establish concealment, making the penalty unsustainable.
