ITAT Cochin Judgments — December 2018

The Tribunal held that the CIT was justified in exercising powers under Section 263 as the AO had failed to make proper inquiries, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. However, regarding the lapsed freezer deposit liability, the Tribunal followed a previous co-ordinate bench decision and ruled in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on evidence not properly confronted to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on evidence not properly confronted to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding that the assessee had an inadvertent error in classifying the income. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

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

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding that the assessee had an inadvertent error in classifying the income. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding that the assessee had an inadvertent error in classifying the income. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding that the assessee had an inadvertent error in classifying the income. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the fresh assessment orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The assessment should have been completed within one year of the ITAT order being received.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the assessee's claims for losses from cinema halls and the higher purchase cost of the property due to insufficient documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the fresh assessment orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The assessment should have been completed within one year of the ITAT order being received.

The Tribunal held that the fresh assessment orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The assessment should have been completed within one year of the ITAT order being received.

The Tribunal held that the fresh assessment orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The assessment should have been completed within one year of the ITAT order being received.

The Tribunal held that the fresh assessment orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The assessment should have been completed within one year of the ITAT order being received.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain the correct business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and decided to dismiss them as not pressed. The assessee was not pursuing the relief claimed in the appeals.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain the correct business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO correctly calculated the time-barring date and that the assessee was provided with opportunities to explain the proposed additions. The Tribunal also found that seized documents, even if accounted for, warrant assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO correctly calculated the time-barring date and that the assessee was provided with opportunities to explain the proposed additions. The Tribunal also found that seized documents, even if accounted for, warrant assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO correctly calculated the time-barring date and that the assessee was provided with opportunities to explain the proposed additions. The Tribunal also found that seized documents, even if accounted for, warrant assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO correctly calculated the time-barring date and that the assessee was provided with opportunities to explain the proposed additions. The Tribunal also found that seized documents, even if accounted for, warrant assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO correctly calculated the time-barring date and that the assessee was provided with opportunities to explain the proposed additions. The Tribunal also found that seized documents, even if accounted for, warrant assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO correctly calculated the time-barring date and that the assessee was provided with opportunities to explain the proposed additions. The Tribunal also found that seized documents, even if accounted for, warrant assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO correctly calculated the time-barring date and that the assessee was provided with opportunities to explain the proposed additions. The Tribunal also found that seized documents, even if accounted for, warrant assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO correctly calculated the time-barring date and that the assessee was provided with opportunities to explain the proposed additions. The Tribunal also found that seized documents, even if accounted for, warrant assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO correctly calculated the time-barring date and that the assessee was provided with opportunities to explain the proposed additions. The Tribunal also found that seized documents, even if accounted for, warrant assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and decided to dismiss them as not pressed. The assessee was not pursuing the relief claimed in the appeals.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and decided to dismiss them as not pressed. The assessee was not pursuing the relief claimed in the appeals.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and decided to dismiss them as not pressed. The assessee was not pursuing the relief claimed in the appeals.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and decided to dismiss them as not pressed. The assessee was not pursuing the relief claimed in the appeals.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and decided to dismiss them as not pressed. The assessee was not pursuing the relief claimed in the appeals.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and decided to dismiss them as not pressed. The assessee was not pursuing the relief claimed in the appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO correctly calculated the time-barring date and that the assessee was provided with opportunities to explain the proposed additions. The Tribunal also found that seized documents, even if accounted for, warrant assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO correctly calculated the time-barring date and that the assessee was provided with opportunities to explain the proposed additions. The Tribunal also found that seized documents, even if accounted for, warrant assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order cryptic and lacking specific findings on the source of deposits. It held that the burden was on the assessee to explain the deposits, and the explanation provided was not satisfactory. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order cryptic and lacking specific findings on the source of deposits. It held that the burden was on the assessee to explain the deposits, and the explanation provided was not satisfactory. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessees and considering their lack of interest in pursuing the appeals, dismissed the appeals in limine. However, the assessees were given liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications to explain their non-appearance.