Loading ITAT cases…
1,074 tribunal orders from the Cochin bench in 2024.
Showing 40 of 1,074 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to this request.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee admittedly did not file any return of income, it is not entitled to the deduction under Section 80P. This decision was based on the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) because the return of income was not filed in time. However, the benefit of expenses attributable to interest income was not withdrawn as the Revenue did not appeal or file cross-objections.
The Tribunal held that entire cash deposits in a current account cannot automatically be treated as unexplained cash. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present documentary evidence before the AO.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits even when dismissing it ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's inquiry into commercial activities was outside the scope of Section 80G(5) approval. The matter was remanded to the CIT for de novo consideration on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not deal with the condonation application judiciously. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the lower authorities due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the 7-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's inability to link PAN and Aadhaar. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee admittedly did not file any return of income, it is not entitled to the deduction under Section 80P, following the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the lower authorities due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not judiciously deal with the assessee's application, failing to comment on the trust's objects or activities. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order, accepting additional evidence without proper procedure and without independent findings. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the lower authorities due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the lower authorities due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order, accepting additional evidence without proper procedure and without independent findings. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be decided afresh by the AO after considering the relevant judgments and directed the assessee to provide a proper bifurcation of miscellaneous income. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was related to the Covid-19 period, during which the Supreme Court had extended limitation periods. Therefore, the delay was considered minimal, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had only a small excess application of income and that allowing 15% of gross income as carry forward would amount to double deduction. The cross objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that since the delay in filing the return of income was condoned by the Principal CIT under Section 119(2)(b), the deduction under Section 80P should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12A was based on the CIT's finding that the assessee had not yet commenced charitable activities. The assessee's appeal against this rejection was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the routing of funds through employees to directors, despite TDS and reporting, indicated a potential arrangement to conceal the true nature of payments and was not a genuine business expenditure.