ITAT Cochin Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, primarily running a coaching center without formal affiliation or providing additional benefits, did not qualify as 'education' under Section 2(15) for charitable purposes. Furthermore, paying interest to trustees on their capital contribution violated Section 13(1)(c)(ii).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that registered primary agricultural credit societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P. It also affirmed that interest income from investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses must be set off before calculating 80HHC deduction, citing jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court judgments. It also upheld the deduction of 80HHC before calculating 80IB, while noting a pending Supreme Court decision on a similar issue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2) because its area of operation extended to three taluks, not confined to 'a taluk' as required by the definition in Section 80P(4). This decision was based on a prior ruling in the assessee's own case for the preceding assessment year.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted due to self-made vouchers and cash payments, the 20% disallowance was excessive. The disallowance was restricted to 10% of the amount supported by self-made vouchers.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that registered primary agricultural credit societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P. It also affirmed that interest income from investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that registered primary agricultural credit societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P. It also affirmed that interest income from investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that registered primary agricultural credit societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P. It also affirmed that interest income from investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax the advance and notional interest, finding a violation of Section 13(1)(c). It also confirmed the disallowance of expenses due to non-deduction of TDS and lack of supporting evidence, dismissing the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution as the assessee neither appeared nor rectified the defects in the appeal. The assessee can move an application to recall the order if they wish to pursue the appeal.

The Tribunal held that Sections 10A and 10B are pari materia and restored the issue of Section 10A deduction to the AO for fresh consideration. It also restored the issue of comparable companies in the transfer pricing adjustment to the TPO for a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that belated remittance of employees' contribution to EPF and ESI, beyond the due date specified in the respective statutes, is not an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Authorities were justified in adding the sum as income from other sources under Section 68. This decision was based on an identical issue in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-2010.

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to non-appearance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated whether the assessee's area of operation was confined to a single taluk, a condition for deduction under Section 80P. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s direction inappropriate and remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to provide necessary evidence to prove the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.