ITAT Cochin Judgments — November 2017

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess provision write-back needs to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as the assessee had no exempt income. The claim for research and development deduction was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess provision write-back needs to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as the assessee had no exempt income. The claim for research and development deduction was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess provision write-back needs to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as the assessee had no exempt income. The claim for research and development deduction was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2). The High Court's decision in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2). The classification by the competent authority under the State Act is to be respected.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2). The High Court's decision in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 4,99,287/- as unexplained credits/deposits. The assessee failed to provide contra material or evidence to dispel the findings of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) had the authority to issue notices under Section 133(6), and the penalty order was not barred by limitation. The assessee also failed to provide a reasonable cause for non-furnishing the information.

The Tribunal held that the diversion of interest-bearing funds for the purchase of property in the names of partners' children, without any business expediency for the assessee-firm, justified the disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) has the authority to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty order was not barred by limitation. The assessee also failed to provide any reasonable cause for non-compliance.