ITAT Cochin Judgments — September 2019

The tribunal held that payments made for construction activities by the erstwhile trustees should be considered for the establishment of the educational institution and allowed set-off of excess application of earlier years. However, some appeals were dismissed as not pressed or based on lower authorities' findings.

The tribunal held that payments made for construction activities by the erstwhile trustees should be considered for the establishment of the educational institution and allowed set-off of excess application of earlier years. However, some appeals were dismissed as not pressed or based on lower authorities' findings.

The tribunal held that payments made for construction activities by the erstwhile trustees should be considered for the establishment of the educational institution and allowed set-off of excess application of earlier years. However, some appeals were dismissed as not pressed or based on lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal held that construction activities were indeed carried out by the assesses and payments were made towards building construction for the educational institution. It also held that excess application of earlier years could be set off against deficits in the next assessment year, provided the trust is entitled to exemption.

The tribunal held that payments made for construction activities by the erstwhile trustees should be considered for the establishment of the educational institution and allowed set-off of excess application of earlier years. However, some appeals were dismissed as not pressed or based on lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal held that construction activities were indeed carried out by the assesses and payments were made towards building construction for the educational institution. It also held that excess application of earlier years could be set off against deficits in the next assessment year, provided the trust is entitled to exemption.

The Tribunal held that construction activities were indeed carried out by the assesses and payments were made towards building construction for the educational institution. It also held that excess application of earlier years could be set off against deficits in the next assessment year, provided the trust is entitled to exemption.

The Tribunal held that construction activities were indeed carried out by the assesses and payments were made towards building construction for the educational institution. It also held that excess application of earlier years could be set off against deficits in the next assessment year, provided the trust is entitled to exemption.

The Tribunal held that construction activities were indeed carried out by the assesses and payments were made towards building construction for the educational institution. It also held that excess application of earlier years could be set off against deficits in the next assessment year, provided the trust is entitled to exemption.

The Tribunal held that construction activities were indeed carried out by the assesses and payments were made towards building construction for the educational institution. It also held that excess application of earlier years could be set off against deficits in the next assessment year, provided the trust is entitled to exemption.

The Tribunal held that construction activities were indeed carried out by the assesses and payments were made towards building construction for the educational institution. It also held that excess application of earlier years could be set off against deficits in the next assessment year, provided the trust is entitled to exemption.

The Tribunal held that construction activities were indeed carried out by the assesses and payments were made towards building construction for the educational institution. It also held that excess application of earlier years could be set off against deficits in the next assessment year, provided the trust is entitled to exemption.

The Tribunal held that construction activities were indeed carried out by the assesses and payments were made towards building construction for the educational institution. It also held that excess application of earlier years could be set off against deficits in the next assessment year, provided the trust is entitled to exemption.

The Tribunal held that construction activities were indeed carried out by the assesses and payments were made towards building construction for the educational institution. It also held that excess application of earlier years could be set off against deficits in the next assessment year, provided the trust is entitled to exemption.

The Tribunal held that construction activities were indeed carried out by the assesses and payments were made towards building construction for the educational institution. It also held that excess application of earlier years could be set off against deficits in the next assessment year, provided the trust is entitled to exemption.

The tribunal held that payments made for construction activities by the erstwhile trustees should be considered for the establishment of the educational institution and allowed set-off of excess application of earlier years. However, some appeals were dismissed as not pressed or based on lower authorities' findings.

The tribunal held that payments made for construction activities by the erstwhile trustees should be considered for the establishment of the educational institution and allowed set-off of excess application of earlier years. However, some appeals were dismissed as not pressed or based on lower authorities' findings.

The tribunal held that payments made for construction activities by the erstwhile trustees should be considered for the establishment of the educational institution and allowed set-off of excess application of earlier years. However, some appeals were dismissed as not pressed or based on lower authorities' findings.

The tribunal held that payments made for construction activities by the erstwhile trustees should be considered for the establishment of the educational institution and allowed set-off of excess application of earlier years. However, some appeals were dismissed as not pressed or based on lower authorities' findings.

The tribunal held that payments made for construction activities by the erstwhile trustees should be considered for the establishment of the educational institution and allowed set-off of excess application of earlier years. However, some appeals were dismissed as not pressed or based on lower authorities' findings.

The tribunal held that payments made for construction activities by the erstwhile trustees should be considered for the establishment of the educational institution and allowed set-off of excess application of earlier years. However, some appeals were dismissed as not pressed or based on lower authorities' findings.

The tribunal held that payments made for construction activities by the erstwhile trustees should be considered for the establishment of the educational institution and allowed set-off of excess application of earlier years. However, some appeals were dismissed as not pressed or based on lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to re-verify and tax the interest income, as the FEMA rules were violated. However, the Assessing Officer must independently determine in whose hands the income is taxable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity rendered the penalty proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) should be computed till the date the deductee assessee paid the tax on its total income. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-computation of interest.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, which is the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to inquire into the applicability of Section 40(a)(iib) rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 to set aside the assessment.

The Tribunal held that for uplink and backhaul service charges, there was no human intervention, thus not falling under fees for technical services, and allowed those grounds. For equipment hire and camera rental charges, the issue was relevant only from FY 2007-08, and the matter was remitted to the AO to examine TDS remittance.

The Tribunal held that for uplink and backhaul service charges, there was no human intervention, thus not falling under fees for technical services, and allowed those grounds. For equipment hire and camera rental charges, the issue was relevant only from FY 2007-08, and the matter was remitted to the AO to examine TDS remittance.

The Tribunal held that for uplink and backhaul service charges, there was no human intervention, thus not falling under fees for technical services, and allowed those grounds. For equipment hire and camera rental charges, the issue was relevant only from FY 2007-08, and the matter was remitted to the AO to examine TDS remittance.

The Tribunal held that for uplink and backhaul service charges, there was no human intervention, thus not falling under fees for technical services, and allowed those grounds. For equipment hire and camera rental charges, the issue was relevant only from FY 2007-08, and the matter was remitted to the AO to examine TDS remittance.

The Tribunal held that for uplink and backhaul service charges, there was no human intervention, thus not falling under fees for technical services, and allowed those grounds. For equipment hire and camera rental charges, the issue was relevant only from FY 2007-08, and the matter was remitted to the AO to examine TDS remittance.

The Tribunal held that for uplink and backhaul service charges, there was no human intervention, thus not falling under fees for technical services, and allowed those grounds. For equipment hire and camera rental charges, the issue was relevant only from FY 2007-08, and the matter was remitted to the AO to examine TDS remittance.

The Tribunal held that running a Kuri business, a profit-making activity, is not incidental to the assessee's primary object of relief to the poor. Therefore, the CIT(E) was justified in setting aside the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that for uplink and backhaul service charges, there was no human intervention, thus not falling under fees for technical services, and allowed those grounds. For equipment hire and camera rental charges, the issue was relevant only from FY 2007-08, and the matter was remitted to the AO to examine TDS remittance.

The Tribunal held that for uplink and backhaul service charges, there was no human intervention, thus not falling under fees for technical services, and allowed those grounds. For equipment hire and camera rental charges, the issue was relevant only from FY 2007-08, and the matter was remitted to the AO to examine TDS remittance.

The Tribunal held that for uplink and backhaul service charges, there was no human intervention, thus not falling under fees for technical services, and allowed those grounds. For equipment hire and camera rental charges, the issue was relevant only from FY 2007-08, and the matter was remitted to the AO to examine TDS remittance.