ITAT Cochin Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal held that the ITO (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 133(6) and that the penalty order was not barred by limitation. It also found no reasonable cause for non-furnishing the information.

The Tribunal followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, which had held that co-operative societies engaged in banking activities are entitled to deduction under Section 80P. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80P. The assessee was considered a co-operative society eligible for the deduction, not a co-operative bank.

The Tribunal held that the essential ingredients of a lottery, particularly the presence of consideration and the intention to participate, were absent in this case. The prize coupon was received as a free gift with no direct contribution or risk of loss by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed the penalty order without hearing the assessee. To ensure natural justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the search and survey were not bad-in-law and that the data in the pen drives belonged to the assessees. It also ruled that the additional evidence (cyber expert opinion) was not admissible as there was no sufficient cause for its late submission.

The Tribunal held that the search and survey were not bad-in-law and that the data in the pen drives belonged to the assessees. It also ruled that the additional evidence (cyber expert opinion) was not admissible as there was no sufficient cause for its late submission.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated were void ab initio because the show cause notices did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the CIT's revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated were void ab initio because the show cause notices did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the CIT's revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced evidence showing a 'nil' demand status on the TRACES portal after revising TDS returns. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the furnished details and a decision in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was a technical breach that did not cause any prejudice to the revenue, especially since the report was available before the assessment order was passed. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This defect renders the penalty proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) with its second proviso was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2009-10, thus confirming the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for planting and development of plantation up to maturity must be capitalized and is not allowable as revenue expenditure. The assessee's claim for replanting and maintenance expenses was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced evidence of revised TDS returns showing a 'nil' demand status on the TRACES portal. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the furnished details and a decision in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of its banking activity and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of its banking activity and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The assessee is not a cooperative bank exclusively carrying on banking business and does not possess an RBI license.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This defect renders the penalty proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced evidence of revised TDS returns and a 'nil' demand status from the TRACES portal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the furnished details.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This defect renders the penalty proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This defect renders the penalty proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of its banking activity and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced evidence of revised TDS returns showing a 'nil' demand status on the TRACES portal. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided that the matter should be examined afresh by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced evidence of revised TDS returns showing a 'nil' demand status on the TRACES portal. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided that the matter should be examined afresh by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This defect renders the penalty proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal noted that the Larger Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the factual activities of the society to determine Section 80P eligibility, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.

The Tribunal noted that the Larger Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the factual activities of the society to determine Section 80P eligibility, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.

The Tribunal noted that the Larger Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the factual activities of the society to determine Section 80P eligibility, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.

The Tribunal noted that the Larger Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the factual activities of the society to determine Section 80P eligibility, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal regarding the invalidity of the penalty notice. It held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the Larger Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the factual activities of the society to determine Section 80P eligibility, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of its banking activity and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of its banking activity and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision, allowing the deduction under Section 80P for the co-operative society's income, including interest from investments, treating it as business income.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) which allowed the deduction under Section 80P. The assessee was considered eligible for the deduction as a co-operative society.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This defect renders the penalty proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the Assessing Officer's satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D and remitted this ground to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Consequently, other grounds were not adjudicated at this stage.