ITAT Cochin Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal found that the appeals were dismissed for delay without considering the merits or the assessee's reasons for the delay. It also noted a lack of proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal found the situation bewildering and restored the appeal to the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority was directed to determine the maintainability of the second appeal and, if maintainable, to decide the issues arising from the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain the delay in filing the Tax Audit Report. The filing of the TAR is independent of the return of income filing.

The Tribunal found that the appeals were dismissed for delay without considering the merits or the assessee's reasons for the delay. It also noted a lack of proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that income attributable to providing credit to its members (real or nominal) is deductible under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Interest income on deposits with co-operative societies/banks is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d) or Section 80P(2)(a)(i), making the head of income assessment irrelevant. A further Rs. 50,000 is exempt under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii).

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. This decision clarified that for unabated assessments, jurisdiction under section 153A can only be exercised if incriminating material is found during a search.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. This decision clarified that for unabated assessments, jurisdiction under section 153A can only be exercised if incriminating material is found during a search.

The Tribunal held that the AO correctly allowed the tax credit as available on record. The PCIT's assumption of utilization of tax credit for earlier years, where it had not been actually allowed, was presumptuous and contrary to due process. The Tribunal found that the non-giving of appeal effect for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 prejudiced the assessee, not the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating on the grounds raised by the assessee and instead deciding the appeal on unrelated issues. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication on merits, confined to the grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The reason for withdrawal was the amendment to the law which prohibits entities from holding both section 12AA registration and section 10(23C)(vi) approval simultaneously.

The Tribunal held that the issue of employee's EPF contribution is settled by the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee, and the Kerala High Court's decision was distinguishable. The provision for bad debts was accepted as per the assessee's claim. However, the issue of short TDS deduction was not fully substantiated by the assessee, and the Revenue's objection in principle was considered valid.