ITAT Cochin Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal observed that the appellant is a primary agricultural credit cooperative society and does not hold a banking license. Therefore, section 80P(4) of the Act is not applicable. The Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT was found to be squarely applicable.

The Tribunal held that since the appellant is a cooperative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, and does not hold a banking license, sub-section (4) of section 80P is not applicable. The Supreme Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT is applicable.

The Tribunal held that since no addition was made by the AO based on the seized material, its non-consideration does not affect the determination of total income. The earlier orders of the Tribunal still hold the field.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO on account of disallowance of provisions for bonus etc. would enhance the business profits, qualifying for deduction under section 80P. The Tribunal relied on CBDT circular and High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that since no addition was made by the AO based on the seized material, its non-consideration does not affect the determination of total income. The earlier orders of the Tribunal still hold the field.

The Tribunal held that since no addition was made by the AO based on the seized material, its non-consideration does not affect the determination of total income. The earlier orders of the Tribunal still hold the field.

The tribunal noted that the PCIT had condoned the delay in filing returns for certain assessment years, a fact that the CIT(A) had seemingly ignored. The learned Sr. DR had no objection to remanding the matter for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the jurisdictional objections were raised belatedly and should have been brought up at the assessment stage. The Tribunal found that concealment of income was established due to the assessee's failure to disclose substantial income and comply with statutory notices. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were justified, subject to re-computation as per the order giving effect in quantum appeals.

The Tribunal held that for a deduction under section 80P to be admissible, a valid return of income must be filed, and the claim must be made within the prescribed time. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant, having not filed a valid return, is not eligible for the deduction u/s 80P.

The Tribunal considered the submissions regarding cash payments made on Sundays and public holidays, which were claimed to be covered under Rule 6DD exceptions. Both parties agreed to a remand for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a primary agricultural cooperative society and is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The presence of nominal members, permitted by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the jurisdictional objections were raised belatedly and should have been brought up at the assessment stage. The Tribunal found that concealment of income was established due to the assessee's failure to disclose substantial income and comply with statutory notices. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were justified, subject to re-computation as per the order giving effect in quantum appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the bank statements and the fact that the assessee is an NRI who transferred funds from Dubai to his NRO account for the purchase. The Tribunal found that the source of funds was sufficiently proved and the observation regarding creditworthiness was incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 600 days due to change of auditors and lack of proper communication. The Tribunal observed that the source of deposits from members was explained and recorded in the assessee's books, and the cash was remitted to the bank.

The Tribunal observed that the AO noted the assessee did not respond to notices or file a return, but the assessee provided proof of filing the return. It was found that the assessment order under Section 144 might not be correct as the assessee claimed to have filed all details and that monies received during demonetisation were properly recorded. The assessee also claimed not to have received notices from the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the unexplained credits and the cost of improvement claimed. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were justified.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the jurisdictional objections were raised belatedly and should have been brought up at the assessment stage. The Tribunal found that concealment of income was established due to the assessee's failure to disclose substantial income and comply with statutory notices. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were justified, subject to re-computation as per the order giving effect in quantum appeals.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's consultant failed to file proper grounds of appeal and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without deciding the merits. The Tribunal also considered that the mistake was made by the consultant, not the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the jurisdictional objections were raised belatedly and should have been brought up at the assessment stage. The Tribunal found that concealment of income was established due to the assessee's failure to disclose substantial income and comply with statutory notices. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were justified, subject to re-computation as per the order giving effect in quantum appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the jurisdictional objections were raised belatedly and should have been brought up at the assessment stage. The Tribunal found that concealment of income was established due to the assessee's failure to disclose substantial income and comply with statutory notices. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were justified, subject to re-computation as per the order giving effect in quantum appeals.

The learned CIT(E) rejected the application for registration without addressing the appellant's petition for condonation of delay. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) had not dealt with the condonation petition. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that for a deduction under section 80P to be admissible, a valid return of income must be filed, and the claim must be made within the prescribed time. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant, having not filed a valid return, is not eligible for the deduction u/s 80P.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee, being a primary co-operative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had overruled the High Court judgment relied upon by the AO, and that the presence of nominal/associate members or disbursing agricultural loans does not bar the deduction. Furthermore, the issue was covered by the Tribunal's own earlier decisions in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not respond to hearing notices due to issues with email delivery during the Covid-19 pandemic and that the Sr. DR had no objection to remanding the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO.

The Tribunal, following the Jurisdictional High Court's decision, ruled that the assessee was ineligible for deduction under section 80P as no valid return of income was filed, a prerequisite mandated by section 80A(5). Consequently, the argument that an addition under section 69A could qualify for section 80P deduction was also rejected, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeals.

The tribunal noted that the PCIT had condoned the delay in filing returns for certain assessment years, a fact that the CIT(A) had seemingly ignored. The learned Sr. DR had no objection to remanding the matter for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that the settled position of law is that cash withdrawn earlier, if not utilized for other purposes, should be considered available for subsequent deposits. The CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanation and granted relief.

The Tribunal held that since the appellant society did not have a banking license and was classified as a primary agricultural credit cooperative society, the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 80P were not applicable. The Supreme Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT was deemed applicable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the medical grounds as sufficient reasonable cause. It held that notices served through the ITBA portal, which remained uncomplied with, did not constitute valid service under section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, relying on the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the appellant an opportunity to present her case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the cash deposits, which were withdrawn from her son-in-law's NRE account for house construction. Since there was no evidence that the money was used for other purposes, it should be considered available for subsequent deposit.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed a cryptic order without considering the appellant's submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the NFAC for a fresh disposal in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not dispute the finding that the CIT(A) had indeed confirmed the penalty earlier. Therefore, the appeal before the NFAC was considered a duplicate appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the NFAC's order and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the non-deduction of TDS on the payments to MPCMS attracts disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The benefit of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was not available as it was prospective and no certificate was filed. Consistency principle was rejected as it cannot override settled law.

The Tribunal held that the non-deduction of TDS on the payments to MPCMS attracts disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The benefit of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was not available as it was prospective and no certificate was filed. Consistency principle was rejected as it cannot override settled law.

The Tribunal held that the non-deduction of TDS on the payments to MPCMS attracts disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The benefit of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was not available as it was prospective and no certificate was filed. Consistency principle was rejected as it cannot override settled law.

The Tribunal held that the alternative claim for deduction under Section 10A, which was not examined by the lower authorities, should be adjudicated afresh by the Assessing Officer. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court precedents allowing such claims to be examined.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, and consequently, the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed/maintainable in light of the CBDT Circular. The issues raised were left open for future examination if any exceptions to the circular applied.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had invoked Section 68 without confronting the assessee about its applicability and had failed to consider the material placed before it. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had considered the evidence related to agricultural income and allotted shares. The CIT(A)'s finding that no explanation was offered was contrary to the record. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a mere change of opinion, as the same material was already considered during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent addition were quashed.

The Tribunal held that a mere claim, even if unsustainable, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars if all material facts are disclosed and the assessee has a bonafide belief. The penalty was deleted as the assessee had a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that a mere claim, even if unsustainable, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars if all material facts are disclosed and the assessee has a bonafide belief. The penalty was deleted as the assessee had a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal condoned delays in filing both appeals. For A.Y. 2016-17, it held that the disallowance for purchasing library books was untenable, as the nature of expenditure is immaterial for a trust enjoying exemption under sections 11 and 13, thereby allowing the appeal. For A.Y. 2018-19, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Addl/JCIT(A) to decide on merits, after condoning the delay that occurred at the lower appellate level.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee trust is enjoying exemption under sections 11 & 13 of the Act, the nature of expenditure (revenue or capital) is not material. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the purchase of PCM textbooks was therefore not tenable.

The Tribunal considered judgments from the Supreme Court (Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.) and the Kerala High Court (PCIT v. Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.) regarding business income and interest income respectively. It was held that Section 80P(2)(a)(i) applies to income from business with members, while Section 80P(2)(d) applies to interest income from investments with cooperative societies/banks registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence like break-ups of stamp paper purchases, cash deposits, and reconciliation statements, which indicated the cash was utilized for purchasing stamp papers. The AO and CIT(A) failed to refute the assessee's explanation with cogent material, and it was not a case of parallel business. The interest income was already offered for tax.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeals ex parte without dealing with the merits of the additions. The assessee's counsel contended that no notice of hearing was received. The tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was silent regarding the service of notices and that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to decide appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that a mere claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when all material facts were disclosed and the assessee had a bonafide belief. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC was justified in entertaining the appeal. The embargo under section 264(4)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which prevents revision petitions when an item is subject to appeal before CIT(A), does not apply to appeals filed under section 246A of the Act. No merit was found in the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the plea of non-existence of the order u/s 143(1) was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and was a mixed question of fact or law, hence not entertained. For other arguments, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that a mere claim, even if unsustainable, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars if all material facts are disclosed and the assessee has a bonafide belief. The penalty was deleted as the assessee had a reasonable cause.