ITAT Cochin Judgments — March 2018

The Tribunal held that withdrawals by partners were for personal purposes and not for business advantage. The Tribunal also found that the argument to limit disallowance to current year's increase in advances was without merit, as interest was paid on carried forward balances.

The Tribunal held that withdrawals by partners were for personal purposes and not for business advantage. The assessee's contention that it had sufficient cash balance for these withdrawals was rejected, as such funds should be for business purposes. The Tribunal also held that the total outstanding advance to partners, including carried forward balances, should be considered for interest disallowance.

The Tribunal held that withdrawals by partners were for personal purposes and not for business advantage. The Tribunal also found that the argument to limit disallowance to current year's increase in advances was without merit, as interest was paid on carried forward balances.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's examination of the Google charges issue was faulty and remanded it for fresh examination. Regarding the SBT deposit, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming a portion of the addition and remanding the rest for fresh consideration based on new evidence. For unexplained investment, the Tribunal corrected an error by the CIT(A) and restricted the addition.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (registration certificate of the payer bank) confirming its status as a co-operative society. It then remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the assessee's eligibility for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) in light of this new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to that considered in its own previous decision in Nannambra Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Tribunal found that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. was not applicable to the facts of the present cases. The Tribunal reasoned that the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. was squarely applicable. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society providing credit facilities to its members for agriculture and allied activities. The classification as PACS by the competent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, was considered binding, and the Income Tax authorities were held to have no right to probe further, as per the Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. judgment. The Tribunal also distinguished the other cases relied upon by the Revenue, finding them not applicable to the facts where credit facilities were extended only to members.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to that considered in its own previous decision in Nannambra Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Tribunal found that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. was not applicable to the facts of the present cases. The Tribunal reasoned that the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. was squarely applicable. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society providing credit facilities to its members for agriculture and allied activities. The classification as PACS by the competent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, was considered binding, and the Income Tax authorities were held to have no right to probe further, as per the Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. judgment. The Tribunal also distinguished the other cases relied upon by the Revenue, finding them not applicable to the facts where credit facilities were extended only to members.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to that considered in its own previous decision in Nannambra Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Tribunal found that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. was not applicable to the facts of the present cases. The Tribunal reasoned that the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. was squarely applicable. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society providing credit facilities to its members for agriculture and allied activities. The classification as PACS by the competent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, was considered binding, and the Income Tax authorities were held to have no right to probe further, as per the Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. judgment. The Tribunal also distinguished the other cases relied upon by the Revenue, finding them not applicable to the facts where credit facilities were extended only to members.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings arising from a quantum assessment order cannot survive if the quantum assessment itself has been set aside. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in quashing the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 54,21,847 based on the admission made during the search, as it was never retracted. However, regarding the deviation in accounting, the matter was remanded for verification of project-wise losses.

The Tribunal noted the assessees' lack of interest in pursuing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, upholding the denial of exemption under section 11 based on the Kerala High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also rejected the claim for exemption under section 10(20) as the assessee is not a local authority.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, upholding the denial of exemption under section 11 based on the Kerala High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also rejected the claim for exemption under section 10(20) as the assessee is not a local authority.

The Tribunal noted the assessees' lack of interest in pursuing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.