ITAT Cochin Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal found no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order. It held that Explanation 3 to Section 271(1) deems concealment if a return is not furnished under Section 139(1), even if filed later under Section 148. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty is automatic in reassessment proceedings where income is determined under Section 148, and thus dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal found no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order. It held that Explanation 3 to Section 271(1) deems concealment if a return is not furnished under Section 139(1), even if filed later under Section 148. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty is automatic in reassessment proceedings where income is determined under Section 148, and thus dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal found no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order. It held that Explanation 3 to Section 271(1) deems concealment if a return is not furnished under Section 139(1), even if filed later under Section 148. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty is automatic in reassessment proceedings where income is determined under Section 148, and thus dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal found no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order. It held that Explanation 3 to Section 271(1) deems concealment if a return is not furnished under Section 139(1), even if filed later under Section 148. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty is automatic in reassessment proceedings where income is determined under Section 148, and thus dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the liability for the foreign trip had crystallised and accrued in FY 2012-13 as the sales giving rise to the incentive were booked in that year. Therefore, the expenditure was allowable under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits and could not dismiss it solely for non-prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal due to the delay. However, considering the explanation provided for the delay in the affidavit, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide on condoning the delay and adjudicating the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for not furnishing the audit report within the prescribed time, citing the High Court's order which acknowledged technical glitches. Therefore, the penalty under section 271B could not have been levied.

The Tribunal held that the payments were for professional services covered by Article 15 of the India-USA DTAA and did not make available technical knowledge as per Article 12. Therefore, tax was not required to be deducted at source.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed the rectification order without properly considering the assessee's explanation, rejecting it on a technical ground. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as infructuous due to subsequent rectification orders.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order under Section 154 was unsustainable as it was passed without providing the assessee with notice and an opportunity to be heard, as required by Section 154(3). The CIT(A)'s order was also quashed for deciding on merits not raised in the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed the rectification order without properly considering the assessee's explanation, rejecting it on a technical ground. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as infructuous due to subsequent rectification orders.

The Tribunal found that the issue of deduction under Section 80P was covered in favour of the assessee by jurisdictional High Court decisions. However, issues related to TDS disallowances and miscellaneous income required fresh verification.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer to await the decision on the assessee's application for condonation of delay in filing the return. If the delay is condoned, the return and the claim for deduction will be considered as per law.

The Tribunal affirmed the additions under Section 68, concluding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash credits, as required by law, lacking sufficient documentary evidence and showing discrepancies in submissions.

The Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the findings of the lower authorities. The AO's action of treating the inflated cash as unexplained and adding it to the total income was considered justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) violated principles of natural justice by rejecting the application without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard on the alleged lack of regular approval. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the issue of deduction under Section 80P was covered in favour of the assessee by jurisdictional High Court decisions. However, issues related to TDS disallowances and miscellaneous income required fresh verification.

The Tribunal found that the issue of deduction under Section 80P was covered in favour of the assessee by jurisdictional High Court decisions. However, issues related to TDS disallowances and miscellaneous income required fresh verification.

The Tribunal affirmed the additions under Section 68, concluding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash credits, as required by law, lacking sufficient documentary evidence and showing discrepancies in submissions.

The Tribunal found that the issue of deduction under Section 80P was covered in favour of the assessee by jurisdictional High Court decisions. However, issues related to TDS disallowances and miscellaneous income required fresh verification.

The Tribunal found that the issue of deduction under Section 80P was covered in favour of the assessee by jurisdictional High Court decisions. However, issues related to TDS disallowances and miscellaneous income required fresh verification.

The Tribunal found that the issue of deduction under Section 80P was covered in favour of the assessee by jurisdictional High Court decisions. However, issues related to TDS disallowances and miscellaneous income required fresh verification.