ITAT Cochin Judgments — March 2024

M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD,KOCHI vs DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 654/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to conduct an inquiry on contentious issues, as required by law and case precedents, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order to set aside the assessment was upheld.

MARIAMMA JOSEPH,KOTTAYAMN vs THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM,, KOTTAYAM

ITA 672/COCH/2022[2010-2011]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2024AY 2010-2011Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest under section 234B(1) is applicable for the period from the first day of the assessment year to the date of the regular assessment, which in this case was 36 months. Section 234B(3) is not applicable as this was the first assessment under section 153A.

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment by way of the third proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) is clarificatory and retrospective. It reasoned that the unamended provision, when construed liberally, could accommodate the intent of the amendment, which was to remove discrimination and allow the balance depreciation in the succeeding year.

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs THE DICT, KOLLAM

ITA 96/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2024AY 2005-06Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the refund arose under Section 237 of the Act, not Section 240. The curtailment of the refund period was considered to fall under Section 244A(2), with the question of delay attributable to the assessee to be decided by the administrative authority.

PATTATHANAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs THE ITO , WARD 2 , KOLLAM

ITA 352/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that ignorance of law is not a reasonable cause for non-compliance. It further clarified that filing the audit report under Section 44AB along with the return of income, without also filing the audit report required under other laws (like the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act), does not constitute compliance.

THE VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs THE ITO WARD 3, PALAKKAD

ITA 327/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the business of banking as defined under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, by accepting deposits from members and non-members and providing various banking services. Therefore, it was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P.

ESATTO BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs THE ACIT, KOZHIKKODE

ITA 559/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it lacked proper reasoning and did not address the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the order was set aside.

THE VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs THE ITO WARD 3, PALAKKAD

ITA 328/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2024AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the business of banking as defined under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, by accepting deposits from members and non-members and providing various banking services. Therefore, it was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P.

DR. C USHA,PALAKKAD vs ITO WARD-3, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

ITA 657/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the conduct of agricultural operations for rubber plantation was established through physical verification, the quantification of income remained an issue. For coconut plantation and other crops, the assessee's claim was wholly unproved. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with the burden of proof on the assessee.

MRS. HEMA RAMNATH,KOCHI vs DCIT, ERNAKULAM

ITA 118/COCH/2021[2010-11]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2024AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether the transaction was a purchase or construction. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 565/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: Disposed13 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contributions for delayed deposit is correct, especially in light of the Finance Act 2021 amendments. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, stating that Section 43B does not apply to employee's contributions under Section 36(1)(va).

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), KOCHI vs M/S GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

ITA 968/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Mar 2024AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) was not in accordance with law as the bad debts were not properly written off in the accounts. The Tribunal emphasized that tax statutes must be strictly construed and followed the Apex Court's decisions.

ACIT, KOCHI vs M/S.GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

ITA 967/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 Mar 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) was not in accordance with law as the bad debts were not properly written off in the accounts. The Tribunal emphasized that tax statutes must be strictly construed and followed the Apex Court's decisions.

UNNIKRISHNAN. K,KUNNAMPALLY vs THE ITO WARD 2, TIRUR

ITA 955/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the issues in accordance with the Tribunal's previous directions. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for fresh adjudication, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for verification of the assessee's claim regarding temporary loans.

JAGADISH KUMAR P.V (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE REMA PADMAJA BAI),TRIVANDRUM vs ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , TRIVANDRUM

ITA 376/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the explanation for Rs. 10.43 lacs from the mother was not satisfactory. However, it directed the AO to re-examine the Rs. 4.57 lacs cash withdrawal and allowed the Rs. 4 lacs from the spouse to be considered as part of available cash. The Rs. 6 lacs from the brother-in-law was directed to be deleted.

PULPARAMBIL RAJENDRAN BY LEGAL HEIR P.R ANURADHA,,CALICUT vs ACIT CIRCLE -1(1) &TPS, KOZHIKODE

ITA 936/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Mar 2024AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the method of reverse indexing to determine the FMV as on 01.04.1981 is incorrect and defeats the object of indexation. The Tribunal reasoned that indexation is meant to adjust the cost of acquisition for inflation, thereby removing the notional increase in value due to the depreciation of money. Reverse indexing, conversely, assumes the entire increase in value is due to inflation, which is flawed. It also stated that reverse indexing is not based on actuals and can lead to an incorrect computation of capital gains, potentially suppressing the actual gain. The Tribunal found no ratio decidendi in the case laws cited by the assessee to support the reverse indexing method. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had proceeded objectively, using authentic data from the Sub-Registrar's office, the credibility of which was not assailed. Therefore, the FMV computed by the AO, approved by the CIT(A), was confirmed. The Tribunal also noted that exemption provisions are to be strictly construed and that the AO had acted reasonably in allowing an extended qualifying period for investment, thus finding no scope for interference on that aspect. The findings of the CIT(A) regarding the method of computation were vacated to the extent they did not explain the reasons for confirming the method.

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the contributions were not voluntary and lacked the required specific direction for corpus donation. However, it found that the lower appellate authority had not properly adjudicated other aspects related to the computation of income under Section 11(1)(a) after the denial of exemption under Section 11(1)(d).

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of exemption under Section 143(1)(a) was a mistake and that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The rectification proceedings were limited to the scope of Section 143(1)(a).

MUTHOOT AGRI PROJECTS AND HOSPITALITIES P. LTD,MAHARASTRA vs ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 153/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2024AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income on surplus funds invested in a PDI is assessable under Section 56, but only after deducting the proportionate interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds used for such investment. The reliance on Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals was deemed misplaced as the facts and claims were distinguishable.

M/S.MUGU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs THE ITO WARD-1, KASARGODE

ITA 372/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal against the penalty under Section 271B was maintainable. The core issue was whether the assessee could demonstrate a reasonable cause for the delay to qualify for the saving provision under Section 273B.