ITAT Cochin Judgments — June 2017

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to doctors as referral fees were in the nature of commission and thus liable for TDS under Section 194H. The assessee's contention of principal-to-principal basis was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the Section 54F claim on merits and restored it to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding interest under Section 234B, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to doctors as referral fees were in the nature of commission and thus liable for TDS under Section 194H. The assessee's contention of principal-to-principal basis was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to doctors as referral fees were in the nature of commission and thus liable for TDS under Section 194H. The assessee's contention of principal-to-principal basis was rejected.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to produce evidence regarding commission payments being below TDS limits under Section 194C(3) as it stood prior to Finance Act, 2009.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in relying on the JDA's agreed price for computing capital gains, as the developer's project costs were not within the assessee's control or knowledge. The Pr. CIT's order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the assessee, as the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on a CBDT circular that stipulated a monetary limit for filing appeals, which the current appeal fell below.

The Tribunal held that the belated filing of the return does not disentitle the assessee to the deduction under Section 80P, as per the High Court's judgment. However, the status of the assessee as a co-operative bank requires fresh verification.