ITAT Cochin Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was initiated on a mere change of opinion, as the AO had verified and allowed the expenditure in the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that freezer security deposits are taxable only upon termination of the agreement with the dealer. Deductions made annually towards wear and tear are not to be treated as income in the year of deduction.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal held that the interest income was not derived from the assessee's core business activities and was correctly treated as 'income from other sources' by the AO. Therefore, it should not be included in the book profit for calculating partner's remuneration.

The Tribunal held that the interest income was not derived from the assessee's core business activities and was correctly treated as 'income from other sources' by the AO. Therefore, it should not be included in the book profit for calculating partner's remuneration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before it, noting that the condonation petitions before the CIT(A) were filed by an incorrect authority. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to consider fresh condonation petitions filed by the correct authority.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before it, noting that the condonation petitions before the CIT(A) were filed by an incorrect authority. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to consider fresh condonation petitions filed by the correct authority.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court's decisions, held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) is prospective in nature. Therefore, no late filing fee under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the processing of the TDS statements occurred after this date. The Revenue authorities' orders were deemed unsustainable in law for the State of Kerala.

The Tribunal held that while the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) might not qualify as a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) due to being unregistered, it could fall under Section 2(47)(vi) as an arrangement enabling the enjoyment of immovable property. However, due to potential computational issues regarding the discharge of consideration and the assessee's preparedness, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. This was due to the High Court setting aside the Assessing Officer's order and directing a fresh assessment, rendering the appeal moot.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for the cost of improvement was wholly unproved and lacked sufficient evidence. The provided document was not a proper receipt and did not adequately explain the payment or the work done.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that a proper opportunity was not granted, and therefore set aside the CIT's order. The case was remanded back to the CIT to pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.