ITAT Cochin Judgments — February 2017

The Tribunal held that contributions to an unrecognized Provident Fund are not eligible for deduction under Section 80C. Therefore, short deductions of TDS were correctly identified, and the orders under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were valid.

The Tribunal held that contributions to an unrecognized Provident Fund are not eligible for deduction under Section 80C. Therefore, short deductions of TDS were correctly identified, and the orders under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were valid.

The Tribunal held that contributions to an unrecognized Provident Fund are not eligible for deduction under Section 80C. Therefore, short deductions of TDS were correctly identified, and the orders under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were valid.

The Tribunal held that contributions to an unrecognized Provident Fund are not eligible for deduction under Section 80C. Therefore, short deductions of TDS were correctly identified, and the orders under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were valid.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of expenses, finding no justification for it as the AO admitted the expenses were genuine and supported by vouchers. The Tribunal also deleted the addition on account of estimated gross profit on food, finding the adopted rate erroneous and noting the impounded documents supported a lower rate.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of expenses, finding no justification for it as the AO admitted the expenses were genuine and supported by vouchers. The Tribunal also deleted the addition on account of estimated gross profit on food, finding the adopted rate erroneous and noting the impounded documents supported a lower rate.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of expenses, finding no justification for it as the AO admitted the expenses were genuine and supported by vouchers. The Tribunal also deleted the addition on account of estimated gross profit on food, finding the adopted rate erroneous and noting the impounded documents supported a lower rate.