ITAT Cochin Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in rectifying the earlier order under Section 154, as a subsequent Full Bench judgment of the High Court had reversed the earlier decision. Therefore, the assessee's grounds challenging the rectification were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in rectifying the earlier order under Section 154, as a subsequent Full Bench judgment of the High Court had reversed the earlier decision. Therefore, the assessee's grounds challenging the rectification were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in rectifying the earlier order under Section 154, as a subsequent Full Bench judgment of the High Court had reversed the earlier decision. Therefore, the assessee's grounds challenging the rectification were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in rectifying the earlier order under Section 154, as a subsequent Full Bench judgment of the High Court had reversed the earlier decision. Therefore, the assessee's grounds challenging the rectification were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his own order under Section 154 based on a subsequent judgment, as a mistake apparent from the record was not established. The original order allowing the deduction was based on a valid High Court precedent at that time.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay due to the abrupt departure of their accountant. Since the audit reports were available before the assessment completion and no prejudice was caused to the revenue, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay due to the abrupt departure of their accountant. Since the audit reports were available before the assessment completion and no prejudice was caused to the revenue, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was due to a genuine reason (accountant leaving service) and that the return was filed before the assessment was completed, thus causing no loss to the exchequer. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the delay.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand reports submitted by the Assessing Officer and the assessees' objections to them. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

The assessee's authorized representative stated that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, granting the assessee liberty to file an appeal against any consequential order.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee comes from an affluent family and conducts a flourishing business, suggesting some cash availability. Therefore, it granted a 50% relief on the additions sustained by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand reports submitted by the Assessing Officer and the assessees' objections to them. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand reports submitted by the Assessing Officer and the assessees' objections to them. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee comes from an affluent family and conducts a flourishing business, suggesting some cash availability. Therefore, it granted a 50% relief on the additions sustained by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments was not justified as the assessee provided evidence from the seller insisting on cash. The Tribunal also partly allowed the disallowance for payments to relatives, granting further deduction, and reduced the disallowance for car expenses from 1/3rd to 1/4th.

The Tribunal held that the lease rent was not a statutory liability but a contractual one. Since the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, the deduction for lease rent was allowable in the assessment year when the liability was finally settled by the government's order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on the subsequent Full Bench judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. The assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P was disallowed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had initially allowed the deduction based on a High Court judgment, but subsequently rectified the order based on a later Full Bench judgment of the same High Court. The appeals were disposed of ex parte as the assessee did not appear.

The Tribunal condoned a 10-day delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were filed against the CIT(A)'s rectification orders which disallowed the Section 80P deduction based on a Full Bench High Court judgment.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had initially allowed the deduction based on a High Court judgment, but subsequently rectified the order based on a later Full Bench judgment of the same High Court. The appeals were disposed of ex parte as the assessee did not appear.

The Tribunal condoned a 10-day delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were filed against the CIT(A)'s rectification orders which disallowed the Section 80P deduction based on a Full Bench High Court judgment.

The Tribunal condoned a 10-day delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were filed against the CIT(A)'s rectification orders which disallowed the Section 80P deduction based on a Full Bench High Court judgment.

The Tribunal condoned a 10-day delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were filed against the CIT(A)'s rectification orders which disallowed the Section 80P deduction based on a Full Bench High Court judgment.

The Tribunal condoned a 10-day delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were filed against the CIT(A)'s rectification orders which disallowed the Section 80P deduction based on a Full Bench High Court judgment.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had initially allowed the deduction based on a High Court judgment, but subsequently rectified the order based on a later Full Bench judgment of the same High Court. The appeals were disposed of ex parte as the assessee did not appear.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154. The rectification was based on a subsequent High Court judgment which was not applicable to the original assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent judgment without considering the assessee's objections and the specific facts of the case. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had initially allowed the deduction following a jurisdictional High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative bank, is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2) in view of Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's Full Bench decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding Section 36(1)(viia) deduction, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. For Section 36(1)(vii), the Tribunal noted the need for debts to be written off, but also acknowledged the Supreme Court's exemption for rural advances, remanding the issue for further verification.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was not condonable due to the assessee's negligence. On merits, the Tribunal found that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable to the assessment years in question as it was prospective.

The Tribunal held that bank statements cannot be considered as books of accounts maintained by the assessee for the purpose of Section 68. Therefore, an addition solely based on bank entries is not justified.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act by not issuing a draft assessment order to an eligible assessee. This procedural irregularity is incurable and renders the assessment order null and void.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 154 to rectify his earlier order which had attained finality. The subsequent High Court judgment did not empower the CIT(A) to alter a concluded assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding Section 36(1)(viia) deduction, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. For Section 36(1)(vii), the Tribunal noted the need for debts to be written off, but also acknowledged the Supreme Court's exemption for rural advances, remanding the issue for further verification.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding Section 36(1)(viia) deduction, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. For Section 36(1)(vii), the Tribunal noted the need for debts to be written off, but also acknowledged the Supreme Court's exemption for rural advances, remanding the issue for further verification.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was not condonable due to the assessee's negligence. On merits, the Tribunal found that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable to the assessment years in question as it was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in rectifying his earlier order to disallow the deduction under Section 80P, following the jurisdictional High Court's Full Bench decision. The assessee's claim for deduction was therefore disallowed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not fully examined the veracity of the statements made in the affidavits provided by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the CIT(A) to obtain a remand report and provide a hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in rectifying his earlier order to disallow the deduction under Section 80P, following the jurisdictional High Court's Full Bench decision. The assessee's claim for deduction was therefore disallowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 154 to rectify his own order, especially when the Assessing Officer had not appealed. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) should have considered remanding the matter for fresh inquiry rather than restoring the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in rectifying his earlier order to disallow the Section 80P deduction, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were filed against the orders passed by the CIT(A) under Section 154, rectifying his earlier orders that had allowed the Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were filed against the orders passed by the CIT(A) under Section 154, rectifying his earlier orders that had allowed the Section 80P deduction.