ITAT Cochin Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This allows the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing, and all contentions raised by the assessee are to be kept open before the AO.

The Tribunal, following the Jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that the assessee was not entitled to the Section 80P deduction because a valid return of income, with the claim made therein, was not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The original return filed was considered 'non-est' as it was beyond the due date, making any subsequent claim invalid.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to apply an independent mind and did not discuss the factual position or grounds of appeal while confirming the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication by the CIT(A) with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to present evidence, specifically regarding the claim of agricultural income and the set-off of business loss against short-term capital gain.

The Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to present evidence, specifically regarding the claim of agricultural income and the set-off of business loss against short-term capital gain.

The tribunal, noting the assessee's election for VSVS 2024 and the lack of objection from the Departmental Representative, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The tribunal granted the assessee liberty to approach them again if the matter is not resolved under the VSVS 2024 proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) had not judiciously dealt with the matter and failed to pass a speaking order as mandated by Section 250(6). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Ld.CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring a meaningful opportunity of being heard for the assessee.

The Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to present evidence, specifically regarding the claim of agricultural income and the set-off of business loss against short-term capital gain.

The Tribunal agreed that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order, as it summarily affirmed the AO's findings without independent reasoning, which violates the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh examination and a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte dismissal was not in accordance with law, especially considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods during the Covid pandemic. The matter was remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that previous years' credits, even if capitalized as an opening balance in the current year, cannot be added as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, as Section 68 applies only to current year's credits. It ruled that the AO's additions based on assumptions and scrutiny of un-impugned prior years' financials were not correct in law, and therefore, directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that if the closing stock is revalued under Section 145A to include taxes and duties, then the opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis for consistency. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to revalue the opening stock accordingly, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the ld. CIT(A) failed to address the merits of the case as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh examination, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The connected stay application was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under VSVS 2024. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek reinstatement of the appeal if the matter is not settled under the VSVS scheme.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not deal with the assessee's documentary evidences, which is contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the matters were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper hearing. The stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

Following the jurisdictional High Court judgment in PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act for interest income received from Co-operative Banks.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order failed to confirm if a hearing notice was served and found that the A.O. had given insufficient time (10 days) between the final show cause notice and the assessment. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication, with directions to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to present evidence, specifically regarding the claim of agricultural income and the set-off of business loss against short-term capital gain.

The Tribunal, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments (including Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., and Peroorkada Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.), held that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) for interest and dividend income from co-operative banks and u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for income attributable to business with its members. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to ensure proper bifurcation of eligible income.

The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, held that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest/dividend income from co-operative banks and under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for income attributable to business with its members. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessee to provide a proper bifurcation of the eligible income.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT. The issues raised are left open for examination in appropriate future proceedings, subject to any exceptions in the circular.

During the tribunal hearing, the assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal. The Senior DR for the respondent had no objection to this request. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

Following the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act for interest income received from District Co-operative Bank and Treasury.

The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay insufficient and vague, noting that it did not cover the entire period of delay nor clarify responsibility. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine, as there was no reasonable cause to condone the delay.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeal due to incorrect filing jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT condoned both the 230-day delay in filing the appeal to the Tribunal and the 30-day delay at the CIT(A) level, accepting the assessee's explanations. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s *in limine* dismissal improper and, in the interest of justice, remanded the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for *de novo* disposal after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) incorrectly rejected additional evidence despite a Rule 46A application being filed by the assessee. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication (de novo) after providing the appellant an opportunity of hearing, with all contentions kept open.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements is automatic and mandatory. It clarified that Section 273B, which provides for reasonable cause, does not apply to the levy of late fee under Section 234E.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had not questioned the genuineness of the source of money but merely disbelieved the appellant's explanation due to a lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's addition without independent findings. Therefore, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in reasoning.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements is automatic and mandatory. It clarified that Section 273B, which provides for reasonable cause, does not apply to the levy of late fee under Section 234E.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements is automatic and mandatory. It clarified that Section 273B, which provides for reasonable cause, does not apply to the levy of late fee under Section 234E.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements is automatic and mandatory. It clarified that Section 273B, which provides for reasonable cause, does not apply to the levy of late fee under Section 234E.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements is automatic and mandatory. It clarified that Section 273B, which provides for reasonable cause, does not apply to the levy of late fee under Section 234E.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(A)'s service of notices via the ITBA portal was not a valid method of service as per Section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, leading to the ex-parte dismissal. Consequently, the tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, relying on a recent Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Chavakkad Service Co-op Bank Ltd., found that the assessee had demonstrated reasonable cause for the belated filing of audit reports. Since no prejudice was caused to the department, the Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under Section 271B by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

Respectfully following the Jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act for interest received from District Co-operative Bank and Treasury. Interest income earned from co-operative societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is eligible for deduction.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. It granted the assessee the liberty to revive these appeals if their applications filed under Form No. 1 of the DTVSV Scheme are rejected for any reason.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. It granted the assessee the liberty to revive these appeals if their applications filed under Form No. 1 of the DTVSV Scheme are rejected for any reason.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. It granted the assessee the liberty to revive these appeals if their applications filed under Form No. 1 of the DTVSV Scheme are rejected for any reason.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It further granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if the application filed under Form No. 1 of the DTVSV Scheme is rejected for any reason. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex parte without deciding it on merits, as the law requires disposition on merits even in ex parte cases. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is legally obligated under Section 250(6) to dispose of appeals on merits, even if ex-parte. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound under Section 250(6) to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if dismissed ex-parte. Consequently, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, granting liberty to revive it if the application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, is rejected. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that the assessee cooperative society is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act for interest income received from District Co-operative Bank and Treasury.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(A)'s service of notices via the ITBA portal was not a valid method of service as per Section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, leading to the ex-parte dismissal. Consequently, the tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, relying on the Kerala High Court's decision in Chavakkad Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., held that such a delay constituted a reasonable cause. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was deleted as no penalty should be imposed when reasonable cause is shown.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction, noting that the CIT (Hqrs.) (Tech) had already rejected the assessee's application for condonation of delay in filing the return. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) considered the assessee's application for immunity from penalty on its merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the AO to consider the immunity application afresh, ensuring all contentions raised by the assessee remain open.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, as the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits even in an ex-parte setting, as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.