The Cochin Bench held that the minimum one-acre condition must be satisfied by the land comprising the approved housing project itself. It ruled that unrelated land or structures cannot be included to claim deduction under Section 80-IB(10).
ITAT Cochin ruled that faculty engaged by a coaching institute were independent professionals and not employees. It held that TDS was correctly deducted under Section 194J, deleting the demand raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
The Tribunal examined whether loans for non-agricultural purposes disqualify a co-operative society from deduction under Section 80P. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it held that such loans do not bar deduction. The ruling clarifies that credit facilities to members need not be limited to agricultural purposes.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure disallowed under Section 37 does not bar deduction under Section 80G. Donations to eligible institutions remain deductible unless specifically excluded by law.
The Tribunal held that when closing stock is revalued under Section 145A to include tax components, opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis. The case was remanded to ensure consistent valuation and accurate profit computation.
The tribunal held that milk procurement and sale by a charitable society were incidental to its primary object of helping small and marginal farmers, and exemption under Section 11 could not be denied.
ITAT Cochin held that since loans and advances are denominated in foreign currency, LIBOR Rates would be more suitable for benchmarking. Accordingly, AO directed to benchmark the international transaction of loan/advances to Associated Enterprise using applicable LIBOR Rate.
The Tribunal held that ₹1.45 lakh in specified notes came from genuine vazhipadu collections and that the authorities wrongly rejected a plausible explanation.
ITAT Cochin upheld that hospital payments to consulting doctors are professional fees under Section 194J, rejecting Revenue’s claim for salary TDS under Section 192.
Tribunal confirmed that incomplete construction does not cancel a transfer under section 2(47)(vi). The matter was remanded for proper computation of capital gains considering partial project completion.
