Loading ITAT cases…
376 orders · Page 5 of 8
The tribunal held that Section 234E, as amended by the Finance Act 2015, can only be levied for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees for periods prior to this date cannot be imposed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were made before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which made such contributions disallowable if not paid by the statutory due date, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was imposed without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing, as the notice was allegedly sent to the erstwhile Chartered Accountant's address and not served on the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh penalty order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to ESIC and PF, paid after the statutory due date but before the income tax return filing due date, are allowable as deductions. This decision followed jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the payment of employees' contribution beyond the statutory due date but before the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1) is an allowable expenditure, following various High Court decisions.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back for re-adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file all relevant documents before the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late fees under Section 234E for TDS statements pertaining to periods before this date.
The Tribunal held that the payment of employee's contribution beyond the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) is an allowable expenditure. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's judgments.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to welfare funds, if deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, are allowable as expenditure. This decision followed precedents from the Rajasthan High Court and the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that substantive justice is more important than procedural technicalities. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF and ESIC, if deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable as expenditure. This decision follows the jurisdictional High Court's rulings.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to ESIC, paid after the statutory due date but before the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), is an allowable expenditure.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E for levying fee is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. It condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) considering the legal issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E for levying fee is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. It condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) considering the legal issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E for levying fee is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. It condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) considering the legal issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E for levying fee is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. It condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) considering the legal issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E for levying fee is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. It condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) considering the legal issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E for levying fee is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. It condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) considering the legal issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to ESIC and PF, paid after the statutory due date but before the income tax return filing due date, are allowable as deductions. This decision followed jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing for the levy of fees under Section 234E, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late fees under Section 234E for TDS statement filing periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in previous assessment years were remanded to the AO for applying Rule 7 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, to compute agricultural and business income. The Tribunal followed this precedent, setting aside the order to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the payment of employee's contribution beyond the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) is an allowable expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF/ESI, deposited beyond the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is an allowable expenditure. This decision followed precedents from the Rajasthan High Court and the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that the payment of employee's contribution beyond the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the income tax return under Section 139(1) is allowable as expenditure. This decision follows precedents from the Rajasthan High Court and the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESIC are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, they are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E for levying fee is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. It condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) considering the legal issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESIC are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, they are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESIC are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, they are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESIC are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, they are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the payment of employee's contribution beyond the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is an allowable expenditure. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC beyond the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) is an allowable expenditure. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's rulings and the Supreme Court's decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.