ITAT Pune held that deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act admissible on interest income received by co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks and nationalized banks. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Madras High Court held that benefit of amnesty notification no. 7/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, and was amended by notification no.25/2023-Central Tax dated 17.07.2023 for late fee waiver has to be extended to all taxpayers who filed their GST Annual Returns [GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C] before issuance of above notification i.e. before 01.04.2023.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance on account alleged fictitious trading loss in absence of any direct incriminating material is not sustainable. Accordingly, CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thus, the present appeal by revenue is dismissed.
Madras High Court held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2014-2015 issued on 29.07.2022 issued under new regime is held to be in time. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
The issue was whether unsecured loans from directors routed through a partnership firm could be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved through books and bank records, section 68 addition cannot survive.
The issue was whether adjustment of brought-forward loss and depreciation under MAT could be altered through rectification. The Tribunal held that such MAT computation involves interpretation and debate, making section 154 inapplicable.
The issue was whether revision could be made to examine disallowance under section 14A despite no exempt income being earned. The Tribunal held that without exempt income, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could dismiss an appeal ex-parte without giving detailed reasons. The Tribunal held that a non-speaking order violates section 250(6) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.
The issue was whether reassessment notices could be issued by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless reassessment scheme became mandatory. The Tribunal held that such notices are void, rendering the entire reassessment unsustainable.
The issue was whether an appeal involving large additions could be dismissed solely for delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that technical dismissal was improper and ordered remand with costs. Key takeaway: meritorious matters should be decided on merits, not limitation alone.
