ITAT Cochin Judgments — September 2022

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, EDACHERY BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 778/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHUNGATHARA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 766/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q, Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHAKKITTAPARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 772/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CALICUT CITY BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 764/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHUNGATHARA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 768/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHALIKKARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 755/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHAKKITTAPARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 769/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHALIKKARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 757/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q1)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHOONDAL BRANCH,THRISSUR vs THE ITO WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

ITA 706/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022AY 2014-2015Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHOONDAL BRANCH,THRISSUR vs THE ITO WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

ITA 705/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHAKKITTAPARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 770/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHALIKKARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 759/COCH/2022[2015-2016(24Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, THRISSUR RO BRANCH,THRISSUR vs THE ITO WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

ITA 708/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (24Q, Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CALICUT CITY BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 763/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, THONDIYIL BRANCH,KANNUR vs ITO, WARD TDS, KANNUR, KANNUR

ITA 684/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHUNGATHARA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 767/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHALIKKARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 756/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHELEMBRA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 713/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (26Q, Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, THRISSUR RO BRANCH,THRISSUR vs THE ITO WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

ITA 707/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q, Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHELEMBRA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 714/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (24Q, Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 709/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KOYALMANNAM BRANCH,PALAKKAD vs THE ITO WARD TDS, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

ITA 738/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (26Q,Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, EDACHERY BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 777/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, EDACHERY BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 775/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, MANGALAPURAM BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 703/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (24Q, Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, MANGALAPURAM BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 704/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (24Q, Q4]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHELEMBRA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 716/COCH/2022[2015-2016(24Q, Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions by the CIT(A) constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The appeals were allowed on merits, following various High Court and Tribunal pronouncements.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHERUCODE BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 719/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (24Q, Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case and that non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The appeals were allowed.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHERUCODE BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 722/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q, Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the merits of the case and by rejecting the assessee's plea on the ground of no 'mistake apparent from record'. The Tribunal noted that non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions constitutes a mistake apparent from record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ERANHIMANGAD BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 740/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not going into the merits of the case and that non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The appeals were decided in favour of the assessee.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, EDAVANNA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 749/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions by the CIT(A) constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The appeals were allowed on merits, following various High Court and Tribunal pronouncements.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHUNGATHARA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 765/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of various High Court and Tribunal judgments favoring the assessee. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, EDACHERY BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 776/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, EDACHERY BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 779/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHEERAL BRANCH,WAYANAD vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 731/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHAKKITTAPARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 771/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KOYALMANNAM BRANCH,PALAKKAD vs THE ITO WARD TDS, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

ITA 735/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHALIKKARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 758/COCH/2022[2014-2015(26Q,Q1)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, EDACHERY BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 780/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q4)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 710/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q, Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHERUCODE BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 720/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q, Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHALIKKARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 752/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, EDAVANNA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 748/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHELEMBRA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 715/COCH/2022[2015-2016 (26Q, Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHOKKAD BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 718/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q, Q3)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, EDAVANNA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 747/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ELANKUR BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 744/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHALIKKARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 760/COCH/2022[2015-2016(26Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CALICUT CITY BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 762/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case and that non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The appeals were allowed.

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHAKKITTAPARA BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 774/COCH/2022[2015-2016(26Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.