ITAT Cochin Judgments — June 2019

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P requires an examination of the assessee's actual activities, not just its registration. The issue of deduction on interest income from other banks was also remitted for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and the appeal was heard ex parte. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to allow the assessee an opportunity to produce necessary proof of construction cost before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal restored the issue of loan additions to the AO for one more opportunity to prove the genuineness of transactions. However, the Tribunal confirmed the AO's decision to treat the share trading loss as speculative.

The Tribunal held that while most creditors denied advancing money, two creditors, Sri. Babu Varghese and Sri. K.A. Kuriakose, confirmed advancing Rs. 2 lakh each. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4 lakh related to these two creditors was deleted.

The Tribunal held that even if the sale price was fixed through negotiation, the acquisition remained compulsory as the entire procedure under the Land Acquisition Act was followed. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 10(37).

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition was compulsory, even if the price was negotiated, as the Land Acquisition Act procedures were followed. It also confirmed the land was agricultural, based on evidence of standing trees, declared agricultural income, and government records.