ITAT Cochin Judgments — February 2019

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs representing personal loans, finding the explanation unsatisfactory. However, the issue of deduction under Section 80C and 80TTA was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee and following established precedents, presumed the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee from lending funds to its partners should be assessed as business income. However, the allowability of interest payment as a deduction was questioned based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment which was under stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee from lending funds to its partners should be assessed as business income. However, the allowability of interest payment as a deduction was questioned based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment which was under stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee from lending funds to its partners should be assessed as business income. However, the allowability of interest payment as a deduction was questioned based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment which was under stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee from lending funds to its partners should be assessed as business income. However, the allowability of interest payment as a deduction was questioned based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment which was under stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee from lending funds to its partners should be assessed as business income. However, the allowability of interest payment as a deduction was questioned based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment which was under stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee from lending funds to its partners should be assessed as business income. However, the allowability of interest payment as a deduction was questioned based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment which was under stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee from lending funds to its partners should be assessed as business income. However, the allowability of interest payment as a deduction was questioned based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment which was under stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer to determine who rendered the services, who actually received the amount, and in whose account it was deposited.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed due to the low tax effect. Following the CBDT circular and jurisdictional High Court judgment, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the issue requires factual verification regarding whether the bad and doubtful debts were reduced from the assets side of the balance sheet. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for re-computation.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the ground regarding the validity of the reassessment. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s findings on the merits of the disallowance were vacated, and the entire issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. It was held that societies classified as primary agricultural credit societies under the State Act are entitled to the deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. It was held that societies classified as primary agricultural credit societies under the State Act are entitled to the deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. It was held that societies classified as primary agricultural credit societies under the State Act are entitled to the deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, applicable from 01.07.2012, shifts the burden onto the assessee to prove that the deductee has paid taxes. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the need for proceedings against the deductee first was rejected.

The Tribunal held that depreciation cannot be claimed on the revalued asset value when a partnership firm is converted into a company. This is because the fifth proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) restricts the depreciation to what would have been allowable if the succession had not taken place.

The Tribunal held that payments made to artists participating as guests or judges in reality shows fall under Section 194C for production of programmes for telecasting, not Section 194J for professional/technical services. Since the assessee correctly deducted TDS under Section 194C, no further action is warranted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly applied the precedent by reducing deemed dividend of earlier years from accumulated profits, even when those were not assessed. The Tribunal restored the Assessing Officer's order.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 133A, without corroborative material, cannot be the sole basis for making an addition. Admissions made during a survey are not conclusive evidence and can be rebutted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative bank and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) due to the provisions of Section 80P(4). The disallowance of contribution to the Staff Retirement Benefit Fund was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative bank and not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on the High Court's decision. However, regarding commission payments, the matter was remanded to the AO to allow the assessee an opportunity to prove that the deductees had paid the taxes.