ITAT Nagpur Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals, decided not to entertain the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that Section 253 of the Act does not permit an assessee to file a direct appeal to the Tribunal against a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271FA. Therefore, the appeals were filed without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that Section 253 of the Act does not permit an assessee to file a direct appeal to the Tribunal against a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271FA. Therefore, the appeals were filed without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it did not fall under the exceptions provided by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals of the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit set by CBDT circulars. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence and lack of response at all levels. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file evidence.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence and lack of response at all levels. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file evidence.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence and lack of response at all levels. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file evidence.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence and lack of response at all levels. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file evidence.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. However, it was stipulated that the appeals could be restored if the Vivad Se Vishwas petition was not accepted for any reason.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. However, it was stipulated that the appeals could be restored if the Vivad Se Vishwas petition was not accepted for any reason.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence and lack of representation. However, considering the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not respond at any stage. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file evidence.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of late fees, was inserted by the Finance Act 2015 with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, fees under this section cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, as amended by the Finance Act 2015, allowing the levy of fee, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, no such fee could be levied for defaults prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provision does not empower condonation of delay, and no appeal lies against such an order.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

The tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.

The tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

The tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for appeals against such levies.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E is a fixed charge for extra service due to late filing and is not punitive. The provisions do not empower condonation of delay or provide for an appeal against such orders.