ITAT Cochin Judgments — May 2017

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not a Co-operative Bank as defined under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P was allowable.

The Tribunal held that the Section 10B deduction must be computed on a standalone basis for the eligible undertaking, independent of other units' profits or losses. It also directed that brought forward business losses should be allowed to be carried forward if within the time limit prescribed by Section 72.

The Tribunal held that the Section 10B deduction must be computed on a standalone basis for the eligible undertaking, independent of other units' profits or losses. It also directed that brought forward business losses should be allowed to be carried forward if within the time limit prescribed by Section 72.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and deliberately intended to conceal income by not disclosing the sale of property and resulting capital gains. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's direction to re-examine the treatment of interest income and expenditure was erroneous, as it violated the matching principle. The Tribunal modified the Pr. CIT's order based on a similar precedent.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B is to be calculated prior to setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The eligible unit's profits are to be calculated on a stand-alone basis, and the income of the 10B unit should be excluded at the source.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not carefully examined the assessee's contention regarding cheque discounting and the chain of transactions. The Tribunal noted that the peak credit in the bank account was significantly lower than the addition made.