Explore the ITAT Cochin’s decision in the Chundayil Kalam Girijadevi vs. ITO case, which sets a precedent that a tax penalty cannot be levied for an honest mistake in claiming a higher gratuity exemption.
Cochin ITAT rules that only essential expenses like plumbing and electrical works qualify for deduction under Section 54F, while luxury interiors such as modular kitchens, wardrobes, and ACs are not eligible. Partial relief granted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Cochin has quashed an assessment order against Al Zarafa Travel & Manpower Consultants, ruling that the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction was invalid.
The ITAT Cochin has ruled that a charitable trust’s belated return filing for AY 2014-15 is not a valid reason to deny an exemption under Section 11. The court clarified that the condition for timely filing became a legal requirement only from AY 2018-19.
The Cochin ITAT has set aside a Rs.35.05 crore income addition to Keezhuparamba Service Co-operative Bank. The court remanded the matter for fresh verification, noting that the Assessing Officer mistakenly clubbed members’ deposits with share capital.
The Cochin ITAT has set aside an addition under Section 68, ruling that a taxpayer’s claim of transferring funds from a housing loan to a capital account requires further verification. The court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT Cochin bench has set aside a massive tax demand on Kathikode Charitable Trust, ruling that a wrong form filing and subsequent denial of tax exemption by the Income Tax Department was a mistake that must be rectified.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Cochin has ruled that voluntarily disclosing additional income after a search notice does not automatically justify a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
ITAT directs fresh transfer pricing analysis for UST Global, ruling that tax authorities must apply an upper turnover filter when using a lower one.
In Sicily Paul vs. ITO, the ITAT Cochin ruled that cash deposits made during demonetisation from a son-in-law’s NRE account were sufficiently explained, deleting a ₹12 lakh addition. The ruling rejected the lower authorities’ assumption that the funds had been used elsewhere.
