ITAT Cochin Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A for levying fees under Section 234E. Therefore, intimations issued under Section 200A for the period prior to June 1, 2015, were invalid.

The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A for levying fees under Section 234E. Therefore, intimations issued under Section 200A for the period prior to June 1, 2015, were invalid.

The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A for levying fees under Section 234E. Therefore, intimations issued under Section 200A for the period prior to June 1, 2015, were invalid.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI not deposited within the due date specified in the respective Acts cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT v. Merchem Limited.

The Tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) can be made for errors apparent from the record. However, it remitted the issue of delayed remittance of employee contributions back to the AO for verification of actual payment dates, considering a potential data entry error in Form 3CD.

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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that no appeal lies against agreed additions unless coercion or mala fide is proven. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence of coercion, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted 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 did not have the enabling provision at that time. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals without considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment constituted a mistake apparent from the record.