ITAT Cochin Judgments — June 2025

For the quantum addition (ITA 405), the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee, an association of illiterate persons, a proper opportunity to represent its case. The penalty under Section 271B (ITA 406) was deleted as the actual brokerage receipts, which constituted turnover, were below the threshold for mandatory audit under Section 44AB. The consequential penalty under Section 271AAC(1) (ITA 407) was also remanded as it depended on the outcome of the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal ruled that the assessee's error was a technical mistake. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, directing the grant of registration under Section 12AA. It held that the assessee, being a Section 25 company with no profit motive, performs charitable activities for the welfare of ex-servicemen. The Tribunal stated that the CIT(E)'s scope is limited to verifying genuineness, not questioning the charitable nature of activities, especially given the assessee's continuous registration since 2004.

The Tribunal condoned a 10-day delay in filing the appeal and noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the case ex parte without considering its merits. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and to submit supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8 specifically applies to income from the manufacture of tea from own cultivation, while income from tea manufactured from purchased leaves is trading income. Therefore, both Rules 7 and 8 cannot be simultaneously applied to the same income.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the appellant's request and the respondent's concurrence.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands. The statement of a third party alone does not constitute incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide corroborative evidence for his claims regarding advances and excess stock. The assessee's inconsistent explanations across different stages of the proceedings were also noted as a reason for dismissal.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands. The assessment was based solely on a statement made by a third party, which did not satisfy the conditions for invoking Section 153A.

The Tribunal determined that the Revenue's appeals did not fall under the specified exceptions for organised tax evasion or similar issues outlined in CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024. Consequently, applying CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, and noting the tax effect was below Rs. 60 lakhs, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings, and the Revenue retained the liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's cross-objections as infructuous.

Following the Jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the Tribunal held that interest income earned by the co-operative society from depositing its surplus funds with commercial banks and treasury is attributable to its main business of providing credit facilities. This income, therefore, qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(E) rejected the application without sufficient evidence to prove the trust exclusively benefited a particular community and failed to provide a mandatory personal hearing. It noted the amended trust deed specified public benefit irrespective of caste or creed. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter remanded.

The Tribunal ruled that the case did not fall under the exceptions for organized tax evasion or bogus transactions specified in CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024. It also distinguished the Surya Herbal Ltd. precedent, noting the appeal involved additions under Section 68/69, a mixed question of fact and law. Consequently, the monetary limit of CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 was applicable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands. The statement of a third party alone does not constitute incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands. The statement of a third party alone does not constitute incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A.

The Tribunal determined that the Revenue's appeals did not fall under the specified exceptions for organised tax evasion or similar issues outlined in CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024. Consequently, applying CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, and noting the tax effect was below Rs. 60 lakhs, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings, and the Revenue retained the liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's cross-objections as infructuous.

The Tribunal determined that the Revenue's appeals did not fall under the specified exceptions for organised tax evasion or similar issues outlined in CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024. Consequently, applying CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, and noting the tax effect was below Rs. 60 lakhs, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings, and the Revenue retained the liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's cross-objections as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the hands of the assessee. The additions were based solely on the statement of a third party, Mr. M.K. Rajendran Pillai, without following the procedure under Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands. The statement of a third party alone does not constitute incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands. The statement of a third party alone does not constitute incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

Following the Jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the Tribunal held that interest income earned by the co-operative society from depositing its surplus funds with commercial banks and treasury is attributable to its main business of providing credit facilities. This income, therefore, qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making a protective assessment or addition. Resorting to Section 147 requires a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, which implies a past event, not a potential future contingency. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making protective additions. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands. The statement of a third party alone does not constitute incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands. The assessment was based solely on a statement made by a third party, which did not satisfy the conditions for invoking Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the hands of the assessee. The additions were based solely on the statement of a third party, Mr. M.K. Rajendran Pillai, without following the procedure under Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making a protective assessment or addition. The initiation of reassessment proceedings was quashed as bad in law.

The Tribunal determined that the Revenue's appeals did not fall under the specified exceptions for organised tax evasion or similar issues outlined in CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024. Consequently, applying CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, and noting the tax effect was below Rs. 60 lakhs, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings, and the Revenue retained the liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's cross-objections as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands. The assessment was based solely on a statement made by a third party, which did not satisfy the conditions for invoking Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands. The assessment was based solely on a statement made by a third party, which did not satisfy the conditions for invoking Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands. The assessment was based solely on a statement made by a third party, which did not satisfy the conditions for invoking Section 153A.

The Tribunal, relying on the Nagpur Bench decision in `Bank of India v. DCIT (TDS)`, held that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source if the necessary declaration (Form 15G/H) is furnished and the payee has already paid the tax directly. Since the payees had paid tax directly, the appellant bank could not be treated as an 'assessee in default'. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte, depriving the assessee of a fair chance to present its case. In the interest of justice and fair play, both appeals are remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh examination and reconsideration after affording a proper opportunity to the assessee, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte, depriving the assessee of a fair chance to present its case. In the interest of justice and fair play, both appeals are remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh examination and reconsideration after affording a proper opportunity to the assessee, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's advocate expressed the desire to withdraw the appeal. Considering the circumstances and the withdrawal application, the Tribunal acceded to the request.

The Tribunal determined that the errors in quoting sections were inadvertent and procedural, not substantive. Citing a similar precedent, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's orders and remanded both applications to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to submit all necessary supporting documents.

The Tribunal determined that the errors in quoting sections were inadvertent and procedural, not substantive. Citing a similar precedent, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's orders and remanded both applications to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to submit all necessary supporting documents.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to fully substantiate its claims with complete documentation during both assessment and appellate proceedings. To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, directing that the assessee be given a fair opportunity to present all necessary documents.