ITAT Cochin Judgments — September 2019

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 recalled its earlier order and, following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per the latest CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the need for substantial justice. However, on merits, the Tribunal found no error in the estimation of income based on seized records and statements, upholding the additions made.

The Tribunal held that the ITO (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) with prior approval, and the penalty imposed was within the time limits prescribed. The assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the material on record and taken a plausible view. Since the AO's view was not unsustainable in law, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was unjustified, as it amounted to a roving inquiry and substituting the AO's considered opinion.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of purchases due to lack of evidence and confirmed the addition for stock difference, stating the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving genuineness and reconcile the discrepancies.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on suspicion and presumption, without sufficient corroborative evidence. The assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on suspicion and presumption, without sufficient corroborative evidence. The assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on suspicion and presumption, without sufficient corroborative evidence. The assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on suspicion and presumption, without sufficient corroborative evidence. The assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, citing a violation of Rule 46A by the CIT(A) for not allowing the AO to analyze fresh evidence. The assessee was directed to provide proper explanations for the bank deposits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a private limited company assisted by professionals, could not claim ignorance of the law or procedure regarding filing appeals. The grounds for condonation of delay were not considered sufficient.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, following High Court precedents that penalty under Section 271B is not leviable if no books of account are maintained. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal upheld the penalty as the assessee failed to provide evidence for reasonable cause for the significant delay in submitting the audit report.

The Tribunal found the time limit given by the CIT(A) for submitting declarations to be insufficient. Therefore, the Tribunal struck down the time limit and left it to the AO's discretion. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for AY 2013-2014, as it was covered by a High Court judgment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakh should not be filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakh should not be filed.

The Tribunal held that since the original order under section 201(1)/(1A) was not appealed against and had attained finality, it could not be considered time-barred. The rectification order under section 154 was also found to be within the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakh should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that while the amended Section 142A allows for reference to the DVO without rejecting books of account, the AO erred by not properly addressing the assessee's objections and by considering the DVO's report as binding. The matter was restored to the AO for reconsideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals. The assessee's counsel conceded that the issue on merits was covered against the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.

The Tribunal found the time limit given by the CIT(A) for submitting declarations to be insufficient. Therefore, the Tribunal struck down the time limit and left it to the AO's discretion. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for AY 2013-2014, as it was covered by a High Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that filing of a return of income is mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 80P, even if filed belatedly. Since no return was filed by the assessee, the deduction was denied.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, following High Court precedents that penalty under Section 271B is not leviable if no books of account are maintained. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal upheld the penalty as the assessee failed to provide evidence for reasonable cause for the significant delay in submitting the audit report.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly allowed the deduction under Section 80P. The assessee's activities were found to be primarily for its members, and the classification as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society by the competent authority under the KCS Act was considered relevant.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the deduction under Section 80P. It was held that the assessee, being a co-operative society engaged in providing financial accommodation to its members, was eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed the deduction under Section 80P. The assessee's activities were primarily for its members, and it was classified as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the relevant state act.

The Tribunal held that the ITO (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 133(6) and that the penalty order was within the prescribed time limits. No reasonable cause was found for non-compliance.

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

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the assessment being time-barred, as it was a pure legal issue. Given the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and the need to examine the limitation issue, the case was restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the sale of land was not exigible to Long Term Capital Gain in Assessment Year 2011-2012. Despite the registered sale agreement and receipt of advance, the Tribunal found that the sale deed was executed in the subsequent year (Assessment Year 2012-2013), and the conditions for transfer under Section 2(47)(v) were not met in the relevant year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared LTCG and paid tax in the subsequent year. The addition of Rs. 1,42,266 for sundry creditors was confirmed as the assessee had conceded this issue before the AO and raised no serious contention before the Tribunal. The disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 2,28,470 was confirmed, as the WDV of the block of assets became NIL due to the computation of short-term capital loss under Section 50, making further depreciation impermissible under Section 32. The disallowance of commission expenses of Rs. 18,55,605 was confirmed because the assessee failed to produce any evidence of incurring such expenditure during the relevant assessment year. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the assessment being time-barred, as it was a pure legal issue. Given the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and did not consider this legal ground, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the assessment being time-barred, as it was a pure legal issue. Given the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and did not consider this legal ground, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the assessment being time-barred, as it was a pure legal issue. Given the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and did not consider this legal ground, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction under Section 80P. The assessee was considered a co-operative society eligible for the deduction, and the arguments against it were not found applicable.

The Tribunal found the time limit given by the CIT(A) for submitting declarations to be insufficient. Therefore, the Tribunal struck down the time limit and left it to the AO's discretion. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for AY 2013-2014, as it was covered by a High Court judgment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction under Section 80P. The assessee was considered a co-operative society eligible for the deduction, and the arguments against it were not found applicable.

The Tribunal found the time limit given by the CIT(A) for submitting declarations to be insufficient. Therefore, the Tribunal struck down the time limit and left it to the AO's discretion. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for AY 2013-2014, as it was covered by a High Court judgment.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals. The assessee's counsel conceded that the issue on merits was covered against the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.