Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
ITAT held that interest income from deposits and investments with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under s.80P(2)(d), as co-operative banks are, in substance, co-operative societies. Following consistent judicial precedent, ITAT ruled the assessee is legally entitled to claim such deduction. However, since necessary documentary details were not produced before the lower authorities, ITAT did not grant the deduction outright. Instead, ITAT remanded the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to examine the evidentiary details to be furnished by the assessee, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing, and directed that, if the factual claim is found correct, the deduction under s.80P(2)(d) shall be allowed accordingly.
ITAT held that interest income from deposits and investments with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under s.80P(2)(d), as co-operative banks are, in substance, co-operative societies. Following consistent judicial precedent, ITAT ruled the assessee is legally entitled to claim such deduction. However, since necessary documentary details were not produced before the lower authorities, ITAT did not grant the deduction outright. Instead, ITAT remanded the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to examine the evidentiary details to be furnished by the assessee, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing, and directed that, if the factual claim is found correct, the deduction under s.80P(2)(d) shall be allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
