ITAT Cochin Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the transactions was not disputed and found a lack of factual findings by the lower authorities regarding business exigency. Considering the need for supporting documents to substantiate the business exigency claims, the Tribunal remitted the issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3) and the genuineness of purchase transactions back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that estimation of income is not permissible without rejecting the audited books of account, and such estimation cannot be subjective. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a de novo adjudication, requiring that the appellant be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.

The Tribunal observed that lower authorities did not dispute the assessee owned 37 acres of agricultural land. While the assessee failed to provide evidence, the AO also failed to estimate income through local inquiries. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for de novo disposal to estimate agricultural income based on local inquiries.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on merits, even if disposed of ex-parte. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the AO ought not to have ignored the revised return of income, noting that mere disbelief of agricultural income does not automatically make it taxable if not shown as an application of income. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for a de novo assessment, instructing them to consider the revised return and provide the appellant a fair hearing.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee on merits. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the issue of limitation, with a direction to adopt a lenient approach. The assessee is directed to file an affidavit explaining the delay.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10B is a procedural compliance, and a revised Form 10B should be treated as an amendment, not an invalid filing, in line with High Court and ITAT precedents. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to accept and act upon the revised Form 10B after verifying the submitted evidence.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from its investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal distinguished the cases relied upon by the revenue, stating that a cooperative bank is considered a cooperative society and not just a banking company under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

The ITAT found that the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty without allowing the assessee sufficient opportunity to submit evidence. Acknowledging the assessee's reasonable cause for non-submission, the ITAT restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee is to be diligent and cooperative.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80P and disclosed all material facts during the assessment. Relying on a coordinate bench's order, it was held that the assessee should be granted the benefit of Section 270A(6)(a) as the explanation offered was bona fide. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 6,92,800/- levied under Section 270A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from its investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal distinguished the cases relied upon by the revenue, stating that a cooperative bank is considered a cooperative society and not just a banking company under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10B is a procedural compliance, and a revised Form 10B should be treated as an amendment, not an invalid filing, in line with High Court and ITAT precedents. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to accept and act upon the revised Form 10B after verifying the submitted evidence.

The ITAT found that the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty without allowing the assessee sufficient opportunity to submit evidence. Acknowledging the assessee's reasonable cause for non-submission, the ITAT restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee is to be diligent and cooperative.

The Tribunal held that overdue receivables and advances to AEs constitute international transactions under Section 92B. It upheld the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESI as per the Supreme Court ruling and the disallowance of interest on loans to subsidiaries due to lack of substantiation.

The tribunal held that the authorities below erred in rejecting the segmental accounts and transfer pricing documentation without appreciating the material on record. The rejection of segmental details was contrary to the evidence, and the TPO/DRP failed to consider the impact of COVID-19.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach unreasonable for refusing to condone the 22-day delay solely because the appellant had not admitted the delay in Form No. 35. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits. Citing Section 250(6), the Tribunal stated that the CIT(A) is obligated to frame points of determination and discuss the appeal on merits. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits. Citing Section 250(6), the Tribunal stated that the CIT(A) is obligated to frame points of determination and discuss the appeal on merits. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even ex-parte, as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Citing precedent, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits. Citing Section 250(6), the Tribunal stated that the CIT(A) is obligated to frame points of determination and discuss the appeal on merits. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of income was arbitrary as it was not based on clear grounds, the assessee's past history, or comparable businesses. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment, requiring a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the appellant.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding the reason for non-production before lower authorities valid and the evidence crucial. It remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing the AO to consider the newly admitted evidence after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently failed to comply with the notice issued under Section 142(1) by the AO, CIT(A), and even before the Tribunal, without providing any valid reasons. Given this persistent non-compliance, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' decision to estimate income. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal of the appeal, instructing to provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits. Citing Section 250(6), the Tribunal stated that the CIT(A) is obligated to frame points of determination and discuss the appeal on merits. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay were not sufficient cause. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in UOI Vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held that the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of income earned from its members cannot be denied.

The Tribunal held that the appellant, being a primary agricultural society that does not hold a banking license and operates on the lines of a co-operative society, cannot be classified as a co-operative bank. Therefore, it is not hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised an issue concerning the applicability of the e-assessment scheme, 2022, which stipulated specific procedures for reassessment notices under section 147/148. The Tribunal found that this issue was not properly addressed.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay were not sufficient cause. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in UOI Vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay were not sufficient cause. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in UOI Vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural society that does not hold a banking license and operates within the scope of accepting deposits and providing credit, cannot be classified as a co-operative bank. Therefore, it is not hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the belated filing of the appeal. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and hear the appeal on its merits.

The Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings under section 263 of the Act. Consequently, the order passed under section 263 did not survive, making the appeal filed by the assessee infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay were not sufficient cause. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in UOI Vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating all grounds, including the validity of the notice u/s 148A. The ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the penalty levied under section 270A on merits and instead relied on section 80AC. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the penalty merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the ground related to the validity of the notice under section 148. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate this specific ground after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

The Assessing Officer completed the assessment at a total income of Rs. 3,37,75,946/-, assessing the income from the land sale on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee and on a substantive basis in the hands of Shri T.G. Chandrakumar. The CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the cost of acquisition at Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) deleted the additions without proper examination of evidence or discussion of the transaction's nature. The Tribunal noted that the AO's invocation of a wrong section does not preclude confirming the addition under a correct one and decided to remit the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer is situated in Vadodara, and the Cochin Bench's jurisdiction is limited to assessing authorities in Kerala and Lakshadweep.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The penalty imposed u/s 270B was deleted due to sufficient cause for the delayed audit report. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) was set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision after the quantum appeal is disposed of.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The penalty imposed u/s 270B was deleted due to sufficient cause for the delayed audit report. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) was set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision after the quantum appeal is disposed of.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee had not furnished sufficient documentary evidence to prove that Kerala Bank qualifies as a Co-operative society for Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal decided to remand the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to allow the assessee to explain this eligibility.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by finding sufficient cause. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by finding sufficient cause. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by finding sufficient cause. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the co-operative society's claim for deduction u/s. 80P was correctly disallowed as the return was not filed within the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1), as mandated by section 80AC. The ground related to contingency expenses was dismissed as it was raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to plead their case and file relevant evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding their lack of familiarity with online proceedings and their remote location. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to substantiate their case forthwith without fail, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to proceed as per law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by finding sufficient cause. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.