ITAT Cochin Judgments — July 2022

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, BALLUSSERY BRANCH,BALLUSSERY vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 514/COCH/2022[20103-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, BALLUSSERY BRANCH,BALLUSSERY vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 513/COCH/2022[20103-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, AREACODE BRANCH,AREACODE vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 545/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, AMBALAVAYAL BRANCH,AMBALAVAYAL vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 488/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, AMBALAVAYAL BRANCH,AMBALAVAYAL vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 487/COCH/2022[20103-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, AMBALAVAYAL BRANCH,AMBALAVAYAL vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 490/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ALUR BRANCH,ALUR vs ITO, WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

ITA 475/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ARIKKULAM BRANCH,ARIKKULAM vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 483/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, AYANCHERY BRANCH,AYANCHERY vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 533/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ANAMANGAD BRANCH,ANAMANGAD vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 551/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, AYANCHERY BRANCH,AYANCHERY vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 531/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, AMBALAVAYAL BRANCH,AMBALAVAYAL vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 486/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, BALARAMAPURAM BRANCH,BALARAMAPURAM vs ITO, WARD TDS, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 498/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ANAKKAMPOYIL BRANCH,ANAKKAMPOYIL vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 506/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ANAKKAMPOYIL BRANCH,ANAKKAMPOYIL vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 507/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE vs KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ANAKKAMPOYIL BRANCH, ANAKKAMPOYIL

ITA 508/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ANAKKAMPOYIL BRANCH,ANAKKAMPOYIL vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 509/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ADOOR BRANCH,ADOOR vs ITO, WARD TDS, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 511/COCH/2022[20103-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ARIKKULAM BRANCH,ARIKKULAM vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 485/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, AMBALAVAYAL BRANCH,AMBALAVAYAL vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 489/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, AMBALAVAYAL BRANCH,AMBALAVAYAL vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 491/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ACHANAMBALAM BRANCH,ACHANAMBALAM vs ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 493/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

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.

ATNK&K AREA ARMED FORCE S VETERANS CANTEEN (GOLDAN PALM CATEEN),PALAKKAD vs THE ITO, PALAKKAD

ITA 98/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed1 Jul 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not considered the original TDS return filed within the due date. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO for verification of the exact nature of the payment and the applicable form.

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, KOZHIKODE

ITA 192/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: Disposed1 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A of the Income Tax Act did not have an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Relying on the Kerala High Court's decision, the levy of late fees for the period before June 1, 2015, was deemed invalid.

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, KOZHIKODE

ITA 191/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: Disposed1 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A of the Income Tax Act did not have an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of late fees for the period before this date was invalid.

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, KOZHIKODE

ITA 193/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: Disposed1 Jul 2022AY 2014-2015Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A of the Income Tax Act did not have an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of late fees for the period before this date was invalid.