THE OZHUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the late filing fees levied were not applicable as the relevant quarters were prior to the amendment of Section 234E. There was no indication of retrospective application of the amended provision.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Ozhur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., appealed against the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act for various assessment years. The appeals pertained to quarters falling before the amendment to Section 234E effective from June 1, 2015.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the applicability of the amended Section 234E, specifically the late filing fee, to quarters that predated the amendment's effective date.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
Appellant by: Shri C.A. Jojo, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2024 O R D E R Per: Bench This instant batch of six appeals in to 368 & 374/ Coch/2023 pertains to a single assessee herein i.e. The Ozhur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. All other related details stand tabulated hereunder: - DIN & Order No. / Proceedings No. all dated 16.03.2023 under section 1 364/Coch/2023 2014-15 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 201 23/1050836602(1) 2 365/Coch/2023 2015-16 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 201 23/1050837137(1) 3 366/Coch/2023 2015-16 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 201 23/1050836994(1) 4 367/Coch/2023 2014-15 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 201 23/1050836790(1) 5 368/Coch/2023 2013-14 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 201(1A) 23/1050836130(1) 6 374/Coch/2023 2015-16 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 201 23/1050837424(1) Heard both parties at length. Case files perused. to 368 & 374/Coch/2023 Ozhur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd.
It emerges at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have levied the ‘late filing fee’ u/s. 200A r.w.s. 234E of the Act as amended vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, involving varying sums, which form subject matter of adjudication in the instant six appeals of the assessee.
Learned Sr. DR could hardly rebut the clinching fact that all the relevant quarters involved herein are for the period well before the clinching date, i.e. 01.06.2015. There is also not material indicating the applicability of the amended provision in s. 234E of the Act with retrospective effect. We thus hold that the impugned late filing fee, which forms subject matter of dispute in all the cases, deserves to be deleted on this precise ground alone. Ordered accordingly.
More judgments on Section 200A
- Mulchand Ramkishan Laddha, Pune vs Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), PuneITA 874/PUN/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2669/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2668/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2667/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2666/PUN/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026