ITAT Cochin Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal held that section 153A assessments should only be based on incriminating material found during the search. Additions must be linked to the year in which the investment was made, and cash flow statements need to be verified date-wise, considering all bank accounts.

The Tribunal held that section 153A assessments should only be based on incriminating material found during the search. Additions must be linked to the year in which the investment was made, and cash flow statements need to be verified date-wise, considering all bank accounts.

The Tribunal held that section 153A assessments should only be based on incriminating material found during the search. Additions must be linked to the year in which the investment was made, and cash flow statements need to be verified date-wise, considering all bank accounts.

The Tribunal held that section 153A assessments should only be based on incriminating material found during the search. Additions must be linked to the year in which the investment was made, and cash flow statements need to be verified date-wise, considering all bank accounts.

The Tribunal held that section 153A assessments should only be based on incriminating material found during the search. Additions must be linked to the year in which the investment was made, and cash flow statements need to be verified date-wise, considering all bank accounts.

The Tribunal held that section 153A assessments should only be based on incriminating material found during the search. Additions must be linked to the year in which the investment was made, and cash flow statements need to be verified date-wise, considering all bank accounts.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's explanation for the delay was not fully substantiated with specific dates, the overall delay was marginal. However, it noted that the requirement under Section 44AB includes furnishing the tax audit report in prescribed forms, independent of the return filing date.

The Tribunal held that section 153A assessments should only be based on incriminating material found during the search. Additions must be linked to the year in which the investment was made, and cash flow statements need to be verified date-wise, considering all bank accounts.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for disallowing the deduction under Section 80P due to late filing was not maintainable. Furthermore, the adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)(v) related to Section 80AC was not applicable prior to April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for disallowing the Section 80P deduction due to late filing was not maintainable. Furthermore, the adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not applicable prior to April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal held that the initial defect in mentioning Section 271(1)(c) instead of Section 271AAB was curable under Section 292B of the Act. The subsequent issuance of a fresh notice and granting of an opportunity to be heard removed any prejudice to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in a continuous and systematic real estate development business. The income from leasing and sale of property should be treated as business income, not income from house property or capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P via Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for processing returns prior to April 1, 2021, is not valid in law. The amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) by the Finance Act, 2021, which would have allowed such disallowances, was not in effect at the time of processing these returns.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P via Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for processing returns prior to April 1, 2021, is not valid in law. The amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) by the Finance Act, 2021, which would have allowed such disallowances, was not in effect at the time of processing these returns.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in a continuous and systematic real estate development business. The income from leasing and sale of property should be treated as business income, not income from house property or capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any explanation for not returning income as per the presumptive rate or getting accounts audited, shifting the onus to the assessee under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal also found that a defect in the Section 274 notice, such as not striking off one of the limbs, does not invalidate the penalty proceedings, especially when the assessee was given an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P via Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for processing returns prior to April 1, 2021, is not valid in law. The amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) by the Finance Act, 2021, which would have allowed such disallowances, was not in effect at the time of processing these returns.

The Tribunal held that a partnership firm and its partners are distinct persons under the Act, making Section 269SS applicable to cash transactions between them. However, a small cash receipt of Rs. 9,604 was considered a bonafide default not attracting penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was required to amend the trust deed as per the communication from the CIT(E) to obtain final registration under section 12AA.

The tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) was null and void as it decided an appeal that had already been disposed of. This was due to an error in the migration of the appeal to the NFAC.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a reasoned order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act and that dismissal for want of prosecution was not appropriate without determining the issues. The assessment order was also found to be internally inconsistent.

The Tribunal found an apparent mistake in the calculation of the addition. It set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification and necessary correction, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing Form 10B has been condoned, the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for processing the return on merits. The appeal was deemed perhaps unnecessary given the condonation order.

The Tribunal held that deductions under the Act are only granted when the conditions are strictly complied with. Since the payments were not made in compliance with Section 36(1)(va), the deemed income under Section 2(24)(x) was not eligible for deduction. This aligns with the Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd.