ITAT Cochin Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal found that the assessee's presentation of her case was wanting, particularly regarding purged bills. However, it noted that the Revenue overlooked the assessee's consistent stand of undertaking only processing on job-work basis. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the subject land was not agricultural land at the time of sale. The sale price and surrounding development indicated it was sold as a capital asset, resulting in capital gains for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to apply his mind to whether the unexplained cash deposits should be treated as income under Section 68, which would attract a higher tax rate. This failure rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the land was not agricultural land as it was situated within a municipality and covered by a gazetted notification. Therefore, the capital gains arising from its sale were taxable. The claim for deductions was also rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the revision in principle, finding that the AO's assessment order was potentially erroneous due to lack of proper inquiry. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of the Section 10AA deduction and correction of the set-off claims.

The Tribunal held that Section 145A must be applied uniformly to both opening and closing stock, and purchases and sales, to avoid distorted trading results. Since there was no change in the assessee's method of inventory valuation, the decision in Melmould Corporation was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the delay was due to the assessee's laches and lackadaisical attitude in not checking email communications. The Tribunal found that the conditions for condoning delay, namely absence of negligence and satisfactory diligence, were not met.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's presentation of her case was wanting, particularly regarding purged bills. However, it noted that the Revenue overlooked the assessee's consistent stand of undertaking only processing on job-work basis. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's revised statement of income was not a valid revised return. It also found no evidence that the mother's contribution was a loan. However, it noted that capital gains from a sale in March 2013 should not be assessed in the current year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the assessee's objections regarding the FMV of the land. The assessee failed to provide evidence for a better road frontage and the claim for the building's value was deemed without basis in law and fact.

The Tribunal held that the sale of the villa to the assessee on credit, while not necessarily a loan, needed clarification. However, monies received from the company's customers by the assessee and retained by him were clearly advances and fell under Section 2(22)(e). The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order had flaws regarding the computation of unaccounted purchases and profit on unaccounted sales. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on these issues.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material relevant to the assessment years was found, the additions were bad in law.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material relevant to the assessment years was found, the additions were bad in law.

The Tribunal held that a draft assessment order does not automatically become a final assessment order. The AO is legally obliged to pass a formal assessment order, even if it adopts the draft. Without this formal order, no assessment in law comes into being.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits to be unproved, inconsistent, and incredulous. The provided confirmations were not satisfactory, and the overall conduct of the assessee did not support his claims.

The Tribunal held that a draft assessment order does not automatically become a final assessment order. The AO is legally obliged to pass a formal assessment order, even if it adopts the draft. Without this formal order, no assessment in law comes into being.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material relevant to the assessment years was found, the additions were bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the conditions under Section 12A, including the filing of an audit report, are mandatory for claiming exemption under Section 11. Corpus donations are considered income under Section 2(24)(iia) and are subject to Section 12A(1)(b) requirements, even if excluded from application under Section 11(1)(a).

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide it on merits. The ITAT also condoned the delay in filing its own appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Rs.9,45,960 was gross profit, not net profit, and thus the deduction was not wrongly claimed on this entire sum. However, since the net profit on retail trade was not ascertainable from the record, the AO was directed to determine it using net profit rates from preceding or succeeding years, or the current year's ratio.

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

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a) for denying the Section 80P deduction was not maintainable. This was based on previous rulings that such adjustments were outside the scope of Section 143(1)(a)(ii) or not applicable prior to April 1, 2021, for Section 143(1)(a)(v).

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices was not substantiated, the CIT(A)'s orders were invalid as they were non-speaking orders, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 70,50,000 as unexplained investment in Manko, deeming the OD account as a conduit for unaccounted cash. It also confirmed the addition sustained for unexplained investment in immovable property, finding no substantiating material from the assessee.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 70,50,000 as unexplained investment in Manko, deeming the OD account as a conduit for unaccounted cash. It also confirmed the addition sustained for unexplained investment in immovable property, finding no substantiating material from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that denying deduction under section 80P at the processing stage under section 143(1)(a)(ii) for belated filing was a mistake of law. Such an adjustment was not maintainable under section 143(1)(a)(ii) prior to the amendment on 01.04.2021.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices was not substantiated, the CIT(A)'s orders were invalid as they were non-speaking orders, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication on merits.