The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune dismissed an appeal by the Income Tax Department, affirming that a cooperative credit society was not liable for unexplained cash credits under Section 68.
The ITAT Pune bench has deleted an addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, ruling that a cooperative credit society’s deposits of old currency during demonetization, received from its members, cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, dismissed the Income Tax Officer’s appeal against Ambika Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha, affirming that cash deposits received during the demonetization period were not unexplained cash credits.
The ITAT Bangalore bench held that the objects of Shrthiparampara Gurukulam, a trust teaching Vedas, are charitable and not religious. This ruling allows the trust to claim tax exemptions under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, reversing the CIT(E)’s decision which had categorized the trust as religious and ineligible for approval.
The tribunal rejected the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)’s argument, distinguishing it from an outdated Supreme Court precedent and emphasizing that the trust’s objects were for the general public’s benefit.
The ITAT Cochin bench has set aside a massive tax demand on Kathikode Charitable Trust, ruling that a wrong form filing and subsequent denial of tax exemption by the Income Tax Department was a mistake that must be rectified.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, ruled in favor of Sattavis Kadva Patidar Pragati Mandal, holding that a charitable trust with a small number of religious objects can still receive an 80G exemption.
The ITAT Rajkot restored the case of Jay Mataji Charitable Trust vs. CIT (Exemption) to the CIT(E) to determine if the trust’s religious expenditures were within the 5% limit allowed under Section 80G(5B).
Gujarat High Court rejects Revenue appeal, holding Rajkot Jilla Gayatri Parivar Trust eligible for Section 80G approval citing SC precedents on consistency.
The Madras High Court ruled that the limitation period for a GST appeal begins only when an order is effectively communicated, not from a simple portal upload.
