ITAT Cochin Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 88,500/- for cash deposits was unwarranted as the assessee's explanation (money returned from travel advances) was not disproven by the AO. Regarding the Section 14A disallowance of Rs. 7,97,923/-, the Tribunal reiterated that no such disallowance can be made in the absence of exempt income, directing the AO to delete both additions.

The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) rejected the assessee's explanation based on presumptions without seeking further evidence or presenting material to controvert the explanation. The lower authorities' orders were found to be based on assumptions, and thus, the Tribunal set aside their orders and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 31,21,000/-.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit co-operative society, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

Following the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit co-operative society, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. This deduction includes interest received from scheduled banks and Treasury. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

Following the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit co-operative society, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. This deduction includes interest received from scheduled banks and Treasury. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered Section 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act, which was inserted with effect from 01.06.2016 and governs the grant of interest in such situations, defining 'refund' to include earlier granted interest under Section 244A. The Tribunal clarified that earlier Supreme Court rulings relied upon by the lower authorities were not applicable and therefore remanded the matter to the AO for re-consideration in light of Section 244(1A).

The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered Section 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act, which was inserted with effect from 01.06.2016 and governs the grant of interest in such situations, defining 'refund' to include earlier granted interest under Section 244A. The Tribunal clarified that earlier Supreme Court rulings relied upon by the lower authorities were not applicable and therefore remanded the matter to the AO for re-consideration in light of Section 244(1A).

The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered Section 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act, which was inserted with effect from 01.06.2016 and governs the grant of interest in such situations, defining 'refund' to include earlier granted interest under Section 244A. The Tribunal clarified that earlier Supreme Court rulings relied upon by the lower authorities were not applicable and therefore remanded the matter to the AO for re-consideration in light of Section 244(1A).

The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered Section 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act, which was inserted with effect from 01.06.2016 and governs the grant of interest in such situations, defining 'refund' to include earlier granted interest under Section 244A. The Tribunal clarified that earlier Supreme Court rulings relied upon by the lower authorities were not applicable and therefore remanded the matter to the AO for re-consideration in light of Section 244(1A).

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit co-operative society, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit co-operative society, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered Section 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act, which was inserted with effect from 01.06.2016 and governs the grant of interest in such situations, defining 'refund' to include earlier granted interest under Section 244A. The Tribunal clarified that earlier Supreme Court rulings relied upon by the lower authorities were not applicable and therefore remanded the matter to the AO for re-consideration in light of Section 244(1A).

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the cooperative society on deposits made out of surplus funds qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The AO was directed to delete the addition made.

The Tribunal, relying on the Jurisdictional High Court judgments in Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., held that interest income earned from investments in both co-operative and scheduled banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(2)(a)(i) respectively. It was concluded that such interest from surplus funds is attributable to the main business of providing credit facilities to members.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the disallowance of loss on sale of fixed assets by agreeing with lower authorities that it was capital in nature and thus not deductible. Regarding the bad debts, specifically the land advance, the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove it was for stock-in-trade or that the debt arose in the ordinary course of business, thus not meeting the conditions for bad debt allowance.

The Tribunal held that while the revised return was filed beyond the due date under Section 139(4), the information contained therein is valuable for assessment under Section 148. Therefore, the AO ought to have utilized this information. The matter is restored to the file of the AO to redo the assessment afresh, keeping all contentions raised by the assessee open.

The Tribunal held that the appellant was neither granted approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) nor registration under Section 12A for the relevant year. Since approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) is a mandatory condition precedent for claiming exemption, the appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee firm had sufficiently explained the source of the capital contributions, as it was received from partners in the form of inherited gold ornaments and foreign savings. Consequently, no addition could be made in the hands of the firm under Section 68. However, the department retains the freedom to take action against the individual partners regarding the source of their contributions if further investigation is deemed necessary.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to inquire into the belated service of assessment orders and decided penalty appeals ex-parte without adhering to Section 250(6). Consequently, all appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to provide detailed reasons for the belated receipt of orders.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to inquire into the belated service of assessment orders and decided penalty appeals ex-parte without adhering to Section 250(6). Consequently, all appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to provide detailed reasons for the belated receipt of orders.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to inquire into the belated service of assessment orders and decided penalty appeals ex-parte without adhering to Section 250(6). Consequently, all appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to provide detailed reasons for the belated receipt of orders.

Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit co-operative society, is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, including for interest income received from scheduled banks and Treasury.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is mandatory, citing the Madras High Court judgment in Conceria International Pvt. Ltd. and noting that the relevant assessment years (2021-22 & 2022-23) fall after the prospective application date of Section 234E (1.6.2015). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal observed that the PCIT (Exemption) dismissed the applications without judiciously examining the facts and disregarding principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the PCIT (Exemption) for fresh examination, directing that a meaningful opportunity be granted to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing the appeal but dismissed the assessee's appeal on merits. It held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash deposits under Section 68. The Tribunal further clarified that additions made under Section 68 or 69 do not automatically qualify as business income eligible for Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing the appeal but dismissed the assessee's appeal on merits. It held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash deposits under Section 68. The Tribunal further clarified that additions made under Section 68 or 69 do not automatically qualify as business income eligible for Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that the approach of the lower authorities was erroneous. It reiterated the settled principle that for charitable institutions registered under Section 12A, income should be computed commercially, and depreciation allowed as an application of income, irrespective of whether the return was filed within the due date under Section 139(1). The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the cases on merits, ensuring that the assessee is provided a meaningful opportunity of being heard before passing any order.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for condonation of delay, deeming the explanation of the Tax Consultant's failure to communicate as insufficient and an attempt to shift negligence. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal emphasized strict application of limitation laws and the necessity of a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred, rendering the stay applications infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which was relied upon for denying the deduction, had been overruled by the Supreme Court. Consequently, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment, the appellant co-operative society is entitled to the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., held that dividend income received by a co-operative society from other co-operative societies is indeed eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay unconvincing, noting that the Chartered Accountant passed away prior to the CIT(A) orders being issued, and the orders were duly served via e-mail. Citing precedents regarding condonation of delay, the Tribunal concluded that no reasonable cause was shown and dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay unconvincing, noting that the Chartered Accountant passed away prior to the CIT(A) orders being issued, and the orders were duly served via e-mail. Citing precedents regarding condonation of delay, the Tribunal concluded that no reasonable cause was shown and dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the 452-day delay in filing the appeal, primarily being out of India, to be general and unsupported by documents, thus not constituting a "reasonable cause." Citing judicial precedents on condonation of delay, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing the appeal but dismissed the assessee's appeal on merits. It held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash deposits under Section 68. The Tribunal further clarified that additions made under Section 68 or 69 do not automatically qualify as business income eligible for Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that repayment of loan constitutes application of income, relying on Supreme Court and Madras High Court judgments. It also directed the CPC/AO to allow the carry forward of excess application from earlier years for charitable purposes. The Tribunal further opined that these adjustments made by the CPC/AO were beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the Senior Departmental Representative had no objection to remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of facts. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the appellant is provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found the CIT (Exemption)'s order cryptic and observed that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration, with directions to provide the assessee with a meaningful opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the D.R. did not rebut the assessee's claim regarding non-receipt of the AO's order. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after condoning the 32-day delay.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the cases on merits, ensuring that the assessee is provided a meaningful opportunity of being heard before passing any order.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(A)'s order lacked a finding on whether notice of hearing was served upon the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that a meaningful opportunity of hearing be granted to the assessee.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay not bona fide, deeming it unbelievable that the email remained unchecked for nearly a year. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, which discourages granting extraordinary relief to litigants who delay in asserting their rights, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay, rendering the stay application infructuous.

The Tribunal held that Section 80AC mandates that the return of income must be filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) for claiming deductions under Chapter VIA, including Section 80P. Given the belated filing, the CPC was justified in disallowing the deduction as an "incorrect claim" under Section 143(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to specifically examine the applicability of Section 12A(ba), which was not previously discussed, and to consider the Supreme Court judgment in Wipro, providing the assessee a meaningful opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is fully entitled to the deduction under Section 80P of the Act for the amounts added by the CPC. Relying on numerous ITAT decisions and the Bombay High Court judgment in GemplusJewellery, the Tribunal concluded that deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act must be granted on the assessed income.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is mandatory, citing the Madras High Court judgment in Conceria International Pvt. Ltd. and noting that the relevant assessment years (2021-22 & 2022-23) fall after the prospective application date of Section 234E (1.6.2015). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the approach of the lower authorities was erroneous. It reiterated the settled principle that for charitable institutions registered under Section 12A, income should be computed commercially, and depreciation allowed as an application of income, irrespective of whether the return was filed within the due date under Section 139(1). The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if ex-parte. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal de novo on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the AO had accepted the explanation for the initial cash deposit from the opening balance. Therefore, it found no reason to disbelieve the explanation for other cash deposits, directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,15,000 made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the profits earned from the 'Kuri' business are utilized for achieving the objects of the trust and are therefore eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. This issue was previously covered by the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case.