ITAT Cochin Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of partner remuneration to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to decide after hearing the assessee, disregarding previous observations.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not sustainable because CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 clarifies that set-off of losses against income under Section 115BBE was permissible before April 1, 2017. Since the assessment year was 2014-15, the AO's original order was correct.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was not justified. The subsequent Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the PCIT had reversed the High Court judgment that formed the basis of the revision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P as the return was filed belatedly, citing the amended Section 80AC. The disallowance for delayed PF contribution was also upheld based on jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal found that for some parties, the aggregate payment was below Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, the assessee failed to provide proof that the recipients had paid tax on the amounts received. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions in the cases of sister concerns with the same creditor were deleted by the Tribunal. The assessee also claimed the loan was repaid. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had responded to the AO's queries and submitted a revised Tax Audit Report. Since the lower authorities did not consider these submissions, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A of the IT Act did not have an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E for late filing of TDS returns. Therefore, such levies for periods before this date were invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following jurisdictional High Court judgments.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification of the exact dates of payment. If the AO finds that the delay was due to bank holidays and payments were made on the next working day, the amounts will be treated as paid on the due date.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if not deposited within the due date under the respective Acts, is not an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if not deposited within the due date under the respective Acts, is not an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court judgment was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court judgment was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the issue of carrying forward excess application of income was debatable and thus could not be adjusted under Section 143(1). Relying on its own previous decisions and Supreme Court rulings, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments until that date. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated TDS returns prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments until that date. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also considered a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11 by the Finance Act, 2021, introducing Explanation 5, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the excess application could be carried forward as per the law in force prior to the amendment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments until that date. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was amended to enable such adjustments only from that date. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also considered a mistake apparent from record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments until that date. Therefore, the levy of late fees was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E under Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision was introduced later. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods before this date was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments until that date. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments until that date. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court judgment was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A of the Act was not amended to enable such adjustments until that date. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. Therefore, the levy of late fees for the financial years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was amended to enable such adjustments only from that date. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court judgment was also considered a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments until that date. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court judgment was also considered a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E read with Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision was introduced later. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also considered a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also considered a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E read with Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision was introduced later. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court judgment was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments. The levy of late fees for the period prior to June 1, 2015, was therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E read with Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision was introduced later. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court judgment was also considered a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments until that date. The levy of late fees for periods before June 1, 2015, was therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments until that date. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments before that date. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for the periods in question was therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to allow such adjustments until that date. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E read with Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment enabling such adjustments was prospective. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgments was also deemed a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A was amended with effect from 01.06.2015, enabling the levy of late fees under Section 234E. Therefore, imposing such a fee for a period prior to this amendment is illegal.