ITAT Bangalore Judgments — September 2022

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,PANCHAYATH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 646/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q2)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,TURUVEKERE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 643/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q1)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,NITTUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 639/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q3)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,MYLANAHALLY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 633/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,NITTUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 637/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q3)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,GUBBI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 647/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q4)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,MYLANAHALLY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 632/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q3)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,NITTUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 642/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q3)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,MAVATHUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 630/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q1)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,MARTALLY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 627/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,MALLAMAKANAPURA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 626/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,NARASIPURA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 625/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q1)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,SIRA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 623/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,CHIKMAGALUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 617/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q1)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,CHIKMAGALUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 618/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q2)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,DODDABEMMATHI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 621/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,CHIKMAGALUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 616/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q3)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,NARASIPURA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 624/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q3)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,DODDATHOGUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 622/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q1)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,DODDABALLAPURA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 620/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

SMT. NANDINI V. KALGUTKAR,MANGALORE vs ITO, MANGALORE

ITA 802/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4 Lakhs, accepting the explanation of past savings for capital introduction. However, it sustained the addition of Rs. 2,58,839/- for gross profit on stolen stock due to lack of explanation. The addition of Rs. 63,91,760/- was deleted as it did not fall under Section 41(1) of the IT Act.

SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1104/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided to remand several issues back to the AO for de-novo consideration, particularly concerning unsecured loans and capital gains, to allow the assessee to provide necessary documentation and for proper verification. Some grounds were allowed for statistical purposes, while others were dismissed.

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

ITA 1905/BANG/2019[1999-2000]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the income assessed in the original assessment had attained finality and could not be reduced in subsequent reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee's arguments regarding deductions were rejected.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,BANDIHOLE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 600/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q1)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained in this case. It directed the deletion of such fees and allowed the appeals filed by the assessee.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,SHIRANGALA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 672/BANG/2022[2013-14 (26Q-Q3)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,K R NAGAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 662/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q3)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,CHANNAKESHAVAPURA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 607/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,BELUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 604/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q1)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,MUDALAHIPPE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 631/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,UNDIGANALU vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 644/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q1-Q1)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,NITTUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 640/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q4)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,MYLANAHALLY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 634/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q1)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,HEBBAL vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 649/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q3)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,MARTALLY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 628/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,CHIKMAGALUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 615/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,CHICKPET vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 612/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q2)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,BHOGAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 605/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q3)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,BANDIHOLE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 601/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q2)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,BALEHONNUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 597/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,BALEHONNUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 596/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q3)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,CHICKPET vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 611/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q1)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,CHANNARAYAPATNA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 609/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q3)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,GUNDLUPET vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 648/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q4)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,PANCHAYATH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 645/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,NITTUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 641/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q1)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,NITTUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 638/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q2)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,NELAMANGALA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 635/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q3)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,MAVATHUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 629/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,IMMADIHALLY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 656/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q1)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,IMMADIHALLY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 657/BANG/2022[2014-15(26Q-Q2)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.