ITAT Cochin Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous because it lacked discussion on the eligibility of the Section 10AA deduction. The Tribunal further clarified that the definition of 'export' under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, which means taking goods or services out of India, does not include 'deemed exports' or trading activities as defined under the SEZ Act.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) were not sufficient to condone the delay. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) were not sufficient to condone the delay. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the ITO (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty imposed was not barred by limitation. The assessee also failed to provide any reasonable cause for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) were not sufficient and reasonable. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order of dismissal.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee paid the self-assessment tax before receiving the penalty notice and faced genuine difficulties, the reduced penalty of Rs. 75,000 for each assessment year was uncalled for and deleted it.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee paid the self-assessment tax before receiving the penalty notice and faced genuine difficulties, the reduced penalty of Rs. 75,000 was uncalled for. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to consider Section 43CA, which applies to business income from property transfer, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the CIT correctly invoked revisionary powers.

The Tribunal held that the nature of receipts determines the head of income and that an individual can earn income under different heads. The assessee's professional income was not traceable to his employment contract.

The Tribunal held that an order passed by the CIT under Section 264 of the IT Act is not an appealable order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Such orders are challengeable before the High Court via a Writ Petition.

The Tribunal held that the addition to income was based on an estimation due to a difference of opinion on valuation and not on conclusive evidence of concealment. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal admitted certain additional grounds of appeal related to the selection of comparables and working capital adjustments. However, it dismissed one additional ground due to insufficient facts. The issue of working capital adjustment was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present documentary evidence due to their inability to properly represent their case during the original assessment.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present documentary evidence due to their inability to properly represent their case during the original assessment.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present documentary evidence due to their inability to properly represent their case during the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the interest income for which deduction was claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) was solely from investments with other co-operative societies. Therefore, the PCIT's direction to re-examine the eligibility of the deduction was upheld.

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. It was also found that the assessee did not provide any reasonable cause for non-compliance.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present documentary evidence due to their inability to properly represent their case during the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty order was within the prescribed time limits. It was also found that the assessee did not provide any reasonable cause for non-furnishing the information.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is only for income from investments in co-operative societies, not co-operative banks. However, it allowed the issue to be examined by the AO for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for income from banking/credit facilities to members.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present documentary evidence due to their inability to properly represent their case during the original assessment.