Loading ITAT cases…
139 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision for such a demand before the amendment. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision for such a demand before the amendment. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision for such a demand before the amendment. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision for such a demand before the amendment. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision for such a demand before the amendment. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision for such a demand before the amendment. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision for such a demand before the amendment. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision for such a demand before the amendment. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision for such a demand before the amendment. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision for such a demand before the amendment. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263. The CIT had not properly considered the conditions under Section 11(2) and 11(3) regarding the application or setting apart of funds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Citing various judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal decided that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution.