Loading ITAT cases…
18 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid as Section 200A of the Act was amended to enable such levies only from that date. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid as Section 200A of the Act was amended to enable such levies only from that date. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid as Section 200A of the Act was amended to enable such levies only from that date. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid as Section 200A of the Act was amended to enable such levies only from that date. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid as Section 200A of the Act was amended to enable such levies only from that date. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid as Section 200A of the Act was amended to enable such levies only from that date. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid as Section 200A of the Act was amended to enable such levies only from that date. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid as Section 200A of the Act was amended to enable such levies only from that date. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid as Section 200A of the Act was not amended to enable such levies until that date. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if not deposited within the due date under the respective Acts, is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's rulings.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if not deposited within the due date under the respective Acts, is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's rulings.
The Tribunal agreed to the assessee's request and remitted the file back to the CIT(A), NFAC. The CIT(A) was directed to allow the assessee to furnish details to support their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeals without giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The CIT(A) should have decided the case on merits rather than dismissing it for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 as the AO failed to consider the jurisdictional High Court's decision on delayed PF remittance. However, considering a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment and the assessee's submissions, the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeals without giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The CIT(A) should have decided the case on merits rather than dismissing it due to non-submission of details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeals without giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The CIT(A) should have decided the case on merits rather than dismissing it for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that freezer deposits cannot be considered income as long as the agreement continues, following its own prior decision. However, belated payment of employees' PF & ESI contributions is not deductible as per jurisdictional High Court rulings.
The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s findings and directed the CIT(A) to confront the assessee's rejoinder report to the AO and decide the matter afresh. This was to ensure the AO had an opportunity to respond to the assessee's submissions.