ITAT Cochin Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal held that while crediting interest to an 'interest payable account' is deemed to be credit for TDS purposes, the assessee should be granted credit for TDS deducted at a later point (maturity) against the demand under Section 201(1). However, the assessee remains liable for interest under Section 201(1A).

The Tribunal held that while crediting interest to an 'interest payable account' is deemed to be credit for TDS purposes, the assessee should be granted credit for TDS deducted at a later point (maturity) against the demand under Section 201(1). However, the assessee remains liable for interest under Section 201(1A).

The Tribunal held that while crediting interest to an 'interest payable account' is deemed to be credit for TDS purposes, the assessee should be granted credit for TDS deducted at a later point (maturity) against the demand under Section 201(1). However, the assessee remains liable for interest under Section 201(1A).

The Tribunal held that while crediting interest to an 'interest payable account' is deemed to be credit for TDS purposes, the assessee should be granted credit for TDS deducted at a later point (maturity) against the demand under Section 201(1). However, the assessee remains liable for interest under Section 201(1A).

The Tribunal held that ignorance of law or inadequate banking facilities do not constitute reasonable cause to avoid penalties. The assessee's operations were akin to a banking business, thus not falling under exceptions.

The Tribunal held that ignorance of law or inadequate banking facilities do not constitute reasonable cause to avoid penalties. The assessee's operations were akin to a banking business, thus not falling under exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's trading business was not incidental to its charitable objects and therefore not a property held under trust. The Tribunal also noted that the object of 'relief to the poor' was not present in the company's charter, and the turnover exceeded the threshold for general public utility objects.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was aware of the reasons for reopening and had made full disclosure. It also found that a protective assessment is permissible in certain circumstances, especially when there are conflicting claims regarding ownership and taxability of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's trading business was not incidental to its charitable objects and therefore not a property held under trust. The Tribunal also noted that the object of 'relief to the poor' was not present in the company's charter, and the turnover exceeded the threshold for general public utility objects.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to file a condonation petition and present their case on merits. The Tribunal emphasized that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary authority's jurisdiction was not excluded by the pending appeal, as the issues raised in the revision were not considered or decided in the appeal. The Tribunal also clarified that the capital gains assessed for the current year related to rights transferred in a later year than the land sale mentioned in the assessee's appeal ground.