ITAT Cochin Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment order, which was a consequence of the Section 263 order, is now under appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the original appeal against the Section 263 order has become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that investments not yielding exempt dividend income should be excluded when computing disallowance under Section 14A. It also stated that the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt dividend income earned.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the pending Supreme Court matter concerning previous years' exemption. The Tribunal considered the request and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that investments not yielding exempt dividend income should be excluded when computing disallowance under Section 14A. It also stated that the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt dividend income earned.

The Tribunal held that investments not yielding exempt dividend income should be excluded when computing disallowance under Section 14A. It also stated that the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt dividend income earned.

The Tribunal held that investments not yielding exempt dividend income should be excluded when computing disallowance under Section 14A. It also stated that the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt dividend income earned.

The Tribunal held that investments not yielding exempt dividend income should be excluded when computing disallowance under Section 14A. It also stated that the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt dividend income earned.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the additional grounds of appeal concerning the carry forward of business losses. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed the return of income in time and the denial of carry forward of business loss was unjustified, especially since the ITAT had directed assessment based on audited financial statements. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order allowing the carry forward of business loss.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view that only the assessee or director could cross-examine witnesses was erroneous. The authorized representative should be permitted to cross-examine. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and cross-examine witnesses.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view that only the assessee or director could cross-examine witnesses was erroneous. The authorized representative should be permitted to cross-examine. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and cross-examine witnesses.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view that only the assessee or director could cross-examine witnesses was erroneous. The authorized representative should be permitted to cross-examine. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and cross-examine witnesses.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the fact that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view that only the assessee or director could cross-examine witnesses was erroneous. The authorized representative should be permitted to cross-examine. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and cross-examine witnesses.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view that only the assessee or director could cross-examine witnesses was erroneous. The authorized representative should be permitted to cross-examine. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and cross-examine witnesses.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view that only the assessee or director could cross-examine witnesses was erroneous. The authorized representative should be permitted to cross-examine. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and cross-examine witnesses.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view that only the assessee or director could cross-examine witnesses was erroneous. The authorized representative should be permitted to cross-examine. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and cross-examine witnesses.

The Tribunal held that the order under Section 263 was passed on August 8, 2019, which was beyond the prescribed limitation period of March 31, 2019. Therefore, the order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the fact that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had surplus funds, the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be recomputed. The AO was directed to exclude the amount of surplus funds and restrict the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the value of investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order under Section 143(3) was no longer in existence, the revision order passed under Section 263, which was based on that assessment order, also had no foundation and was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the bonafide reasons provided. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not considered the substantive issues.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view that only the assessee or director could cross-examine witnesses was erroneous. The authorized representative should be permitted to cross-examine. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and cross-examine witnesses.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in obtaining and filing the audit report, considering the delay in the preceding year's audit and the short period between the two audits. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the issue was likely in favour of the assessee on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the issue was in favour of the assessee on merits and technicalities should not prevent adjudication. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the issue was likely in favour of the assessee on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the issue was likely in favour of the assessee on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the issue was likely in favour of the assessee on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the issue was likely in favour of the assessee on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the issue was likely in favour of the assessee on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the issue was likely in favour of the assessee on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the fact that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The tribunal noted that the order giving effect to the Section 263 order had been passed and there was no revenue effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the fact that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the fact that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the fact that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the fact that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found the CIT's finding regarding the bank debit to be factually erroneous. It also held that the issue of cost of improvement was not part of the limited scrutiny, thus the CIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the fact that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the fact that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that estimation of income is not permissible without rejecting the assessee's books of account, as the books were not found to be defective. The grounds related to the denial of Section 11/12A status were dismissed based on a coordinate bench's decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the fact that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the intimation under Section 143(1) treated the return as filed under Section 139, it implied that the delay in filing was condoned. Therefore, the deduction claimed under Section 80P should be allowed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to submit all required details and cooperate with the CIT.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for readjudication. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of being heard, and was directed to cooperate with the CIT's notices.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for readjudication. The CIT was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to consider the details submitted by mail.

The ITAT held that the Supreme Court had set aside the Kerala High Court judgment. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) unless profits are attributable to loans given to non-members.