ITAT Cochin Judgments — March 2019

The Tribunal restored the issue of rent disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, as the rental agreement was not available. However, the disallowance of terminal handling charges was upheld as the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision. It partly allowed the deduction for special reserve, confirming relief for industrial/agricultural development and infrastructure, but not for housing development. The interest under Section 234B was confirmed, and the deletion of depreciation on 'Held to Maturity' investments was upheld.

The Tribunal held that if a loan is taken for business or trading activity and is subsequently waived, it constitutes taxable income. However, if the loan was utilized for acquiring capital assets, its waiver is not taxable.

The Tribunal restored the issue of rent disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, as the rental agreement was not available. However, the disallowance of terminal handling charges was upheld as the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C before passing the final assessment order renders the assessment illegal and without jurisdiction. The appeals concerning the club expenses and 80IA deduction were partly allowed or dismissed based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision. It partly allowed the deduction for special reserve, confirming relief for industrial/agricultural development and infrastructure, but not for housing development. The interest under Section 234B was confirmed, and the deletion of depreciation on 'Held to Maturity' investments was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the land maintenance expenses were revenue in nature, incurred for cleaning, waste removal, and landscaping, partly to comply with Pollution Control Board directions and partly for the upkeep of a children's park. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and Section 263 could not be invoked.

The Tribunal held that based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed.

The ITAT upheld the disallowance of employees' PF contribution, citing a jurisdictional High Court ruling. However, for the interest paid to the Rubber Board, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the application and Trust Deed indicated charitable objectives. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the CIT(Exemptions) to grant approval under Section 12AA in line with the application and deed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to tax foreign deposits of a non-resident unless their source is proven to be from India. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to tax foreign deposits of a non-resident unless their source is proven to be from India. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to tax foreign deposits of a non-resident unless their source is proven to be from India. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to tax foreign deposits of a non-resident unless their source is proven to be from India. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to tax foreign deposits of a non-resident unless their source is proven to be from India. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to tax foreign deposits of a non-resident unless their source is proven to be from India. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that STPI approval is not sufficient for Section 10B deduction, following Delhi High Court precedent. However, the alternative claim for Section 10A deduction was allowed to be examined, as the audit report was filed during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the AO an opportunity to analyze the fresh evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Section 54G deduction. It noted that no areas in Kerala were notified as urban areas under the relevant explanation, making the assessee ineligible for the exemption.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on unutilized surplus funds during the pre-commencement stage of business is taxable under the head 'income from other sources'. It further held that business loss cannot be set off against such income as the business had not yet commenced.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on unutilized surplus funds during the pre-commencement stage of business is taxable under the head 'income from other sources'. It further held that business loss cannot be set off against such income as the business had not yet commenced.

The Tribunal held that the issue of withdrawing TDS credit when the corresponding income was not offered for tax is debatable and cannot be rectified under Section 154. The credit granted in the assessment order was therefore upheld.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on unutilized surplus funds during the pre-commencement stage of business is taxable under the head 'income from other sources'. It further held that business loss cannot be set off against such income as the business had not yet been set up.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution, following established precedents. The assessee can apply to recall the order if a reasonable cause for non-appearance is shown.

The Tribunal held that there were judgments supporting the applicability of Section 43D to co-operative banks, making the Assessing Officer's order not erroneous. Therefore, the CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that gallonage fee and license fee paid by the assessee were exclusive levies on a State Government undertaking and thus disallowable under Section 40(a)(iib). The appeal regarding surcharge on sales tax was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt but the overall dismissal suggests it was also disallowed.

The Tribunal held that gallonage fee and license fee paid by the assessee were exclusive levies on a State Government undertaking and thus disallowable under Section 40(a)(iib). The appeal regarding surcharge on sales tax was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt but the overall dismissal suggests it was also disallowed.

The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that societies classified as primary agricultural credit societies under the State Act are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application to explain their absence, which could lead to the appeal being recalled.

The Tribunal held that direct expenses, excluding depreciation, should be considered for calculating the GP rate. It also directed the AO to consider only the assessee's own figures and not club them with sister concerns.

The Tribunal held that direct expenses, excluding depreciation, should be considered for calculating the GP rate. It also directed the AO to consider only the assessee's own figures and not club them with sister concerns.

The Tribunal held that direct expenses, excluding depreciation, should be considered for calculating the GP rate. It also directed the AO to consider only the assessee's own figures and not club them with sister concerns.

The Tribunal held that direct expenses, excluding depreciation, should be considered for calculating the GP rate. It also directed the AO to consider only the assessee's own figures and not club them with sister concerns.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of shared expenses in the hands of the assessee without a corresponding adjustment in the holding company's assessment amounted to double taxation. The Tribunal found the assessee's allocation to be fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after four years was not permissible as there was no negligence on the part of the assessees in furnishing details during the original assessment. The Assessing Officer had specifically inquired about and verified the current account details.

The tribunal presumed the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and stay application due to non-appearance. Consequently, the appeal and stay application were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC, but the quantification needs to be done by the Assessing Officer as the claim exceeded the export house's profits. For Section 10A, the assessee is entitled to deduction for the unexpired period, excluding IQF exports, with quantification also to be done by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after four years was not permissible as there was no negligence on the part of the assessees in furnishing details during the original assessment. The Assessing Officer had specifically inquired about and verified the current account details.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed on March 28, 2014, pursuant to the ITAT's order dated October 21, 2011, was indeed barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the IT Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the assessee did not challenge the inclusion of indirect expenses in the common expenses before the CIT(A). Therefore, the argument regarding the incorrect inclusion of indirect expenses could not be considered at this stage.

The Tribunal held that primary agricultural credit societies registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2). This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80RR should be allowed on the net foreign income after deducting expenses, not on the gross receipts. The assessee's contention that gross foreign receipts should be considered was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial burden of proof under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the donor were not established with sufficient evidence.

For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty for concealment of income as the assessee failed to disclose the bank account and provided a false explanation. For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the additional ground regarding reopening of assessment on audit objection.