ITAT Cochin Judgments — March 2020

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2015-2016, the loss from house property could be set off against additions made under Section 68, as the amendment restricting such set-offs was applicable from AY 2017-2018. Therefore, the assessment order was not prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's judgments which stated that such contributions paid beyond the due dates are not eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2014-2015, the assessee could set off the loss from house property against the income from Emu Farm and sale of buffaloes. Therefore, the assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that since the micro finance activities were confirmed as business and the receipts exceeded the threshold, the assessee was liable to furnish an audit report. As no explanation was provided for the failure, the penalty under Section 271B was rightly confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's micro-finance activities were commercial in nature and not charitable, citing a previous decision in its own case. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's micro-finance activities were commercial in nature and not charitable, citing a previous decision in its own case. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was confirmed.

The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw its appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw its appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw its appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw its appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit in the CBDT circular. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that it was premature to levy penalty as the quantum additions were still under adjudication before the CIT(A) in the second round. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh penalty orders after the final outcome of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was done beyond four years without establishing failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts, and it was based on a change of opinion. Furthermore, the freezer deposits are taxable only in the year of dealership termination, not as lapsed liabilities annually.

The Tribunal held that failure to provide a draft assessment order to an eligible assessee, as mandated by Section 144C, renders the final assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction. This decision was based on multiple High Court and Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF/ESI, if not paid within the due date under the labour welfare Acts, is not deductible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date under the respective Acts is not deductible, even if paid before the return filing due date.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI. This was based on the jurisdictional High Court's judgments stating such late payments are not eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 of the IT Act, as the subsequent Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court 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 his earlier order under Section 154. This was because the subsequent Full Bench judgment of the High Court reversed the earlier decision, creating a rectifiable mistake.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for planting and development of plantation up to maturity must be capitalized and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The assessee's claim was for replanting new areas, not for infilling existing ones, which was not covered by Rule 7A(2).

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI. This was based on the jurisdictional High Court's judgments stating such late payments are not eligible for deduction.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI. This was based on the jurisdictional High Court's judgments stating such late payments are not eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for planting and development of plantation up to maturity must be capitalized and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The assessee's claim was for replanting new areas, not for infilling existing ones, which was not covered by Rule 7A(2).

The Tribunal remitted the issue of disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with a direction to the assessee to produce a fund flow statement. The disallowance under Rule 8D(iii) was confirmed. The issue regarding reduction in account balances was also remitted to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.