ITAT Cochin Judgments — June 2020

The Tribunal is remanding the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is because the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court has admitted a Special Leave Petition challenging the Kerala High Court's decision in the Mavilayi case, which was the basis for the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal is remanding the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is because the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court has admitted a Special Leave Petition challenging the Kerala High Court's decision in the Mavilayi case, which was the basis for the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal is remanding the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is because the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court has admitted a Special Leave Petition challenging the Kerala High Court's decision in the Mavilayi case, which was the basis for the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT had held that when a certificate is issued to an assessee, tax authorities cannot reject it. The Tribunal's decision is not fully detailed in the provided text, but it implies a consideration of this precedent.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT had held that when a certificate is issued to an assessee, tax authorities cannot reject it. The Tribunal seems to be in the process of deciding the appeal based on this precedent.

The Tribunal is remanding the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is because the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. case, which was relied upon by the CIT(A), has been challenged before the Supreme Court, and the SLP has been admitted.

The Tribunal is remanding the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is because the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court has admitted a Special Leave Petition challenging the Kerala High Court's decision in the Mavilayi case, which was the basis for the CIT(A)'s order.

The assessee had filed a written submission requesting to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal considered the submission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P for its entire credit business with members, as it is not hit by the restrictions in Section 80P(4). The AO and CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction.

The Tribunal considered the written submission of the assessee requesting withdrawal due to a jurisdictional issue. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P for its entire credit business with members, as it is not hit by the restrictions in Section 80P(4). The AO and CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the crucial issue of the validity of the reopening of assessment. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of all issues.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted a detailed examination of each loan disbursement to determine its purpose (agricultural or non-agricultural). The AO's conclusion that agricultural loans were minuscule was based on a superficial review of loan extracts and audit reports. The Tribunal noted that the AO also failed to examine the extent of loans disbursed to non-members. At the time of assessment, the ruling of the Kerala High Court in Chirakkal Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. was prevalent, where a certificate from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies classifying the assessee as a primary agricultural credit society was considered sufficient for deduction. However, in light of the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal decided that a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer was necessary. The AO is directed to scrutinize the nature and purpose of each loan disbursement, identify loans to non-members for non-agricultural purposes, and then determine compliance with the activities of a primary agricultural credit society before denying the deduction under Section 80P(2). The issue was accordingly restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The assessee expressed a wish to withdraw the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The Tribunal considered the submission and the Revenue's position.

The assessee expressed a wish to withdraw the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The Tribunal considered the submission and the Revenue's position.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT was relevant. The appeals were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT was relevant. The appeals were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT held that a certificate issued to an assessee by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is crucial. The Tribunal did not provide a final decision on the merits of the appeal in the provided text, but indicated the importance of this certificate.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P. The core issue is whether the co-operative society's activities qualify for the deduction, particularly in light of Section 80P(4) and its classification as a primary agricultural credit society.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders which confirmed the disallowance of Section 80P deduction. The core issue is whether the assessee, a co-operative society, qualifies for the deduction despite engaging in banking activities, particularly in light of Section 80P(4).

The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P. The core issue is whether the co-operative society's activities qualify for the deduction, particularly in light of Section 80P(4) and its classification as a primary agricultural credit society.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P. The core issue is whether the co-operative society's activities qualify for the deduction, particularly in light of Section 80P(4) and its classification as a primary agricultural credit society.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P. The core issue is whether the co-operative society's activities qualify for the deduction, particularly in light of Section 80P(4) and its classification as a primary agricultural credit society.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT held that a certificate issued to an assessee by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is crucial. The Tribunal did not provide a final decision on the merits of the appeal in the provided text, but indicated the importance of this certificate.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders which confirmed the disallowance of Section 80P deduction. The core issue is whether the assessee, a co-operative society, qualifies for the deduction despite engaging in banking activities, particularly in light of Section 80P(4).

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E is not sustainable for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. This is based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that Section 200A did not confer power to compute such fees before that date.

The tribunal heard the Revenue's representative and, based on the assessee's request for withdrawal, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had previously held that co-operative societies engaged in banking are not eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The appeal was dismissed based on this precedent.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the disallowance on subscription and membership fees from 30% to 10% and deleting the 10% ad-hoc disallowance on other expenses supported by self-made vouchers.

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 on which the initial order was based.