ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, if employee's contributions to PF/ESIC are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, such payments are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2019-20, if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it is deductible. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and applies from AY 2021-22.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, if employee's contributions to PF/ESIC are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, such payments are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, if employee contributions to EPF/ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, such payments are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, if employee contributions to EPF/ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, such payments are deductible. The amendment introducing Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view in allowing the deduction, and the PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction. The interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments in a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the commission payments were justified and within the overall transaction rates. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance based on isolated transactions without considering the overall context.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was amended to include this provision effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the 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 amended to include this provision effective 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 fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which allows for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was amended effective June 1, 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 fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was amended to include this provision effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was amended to include this provision effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the 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 amended to include this provision effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which allows for the levy of fees for delayed TDS statements, was amended to be effective from June 1, 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 amended to include this provision effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

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 fees can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which allows for the levy of fee for delayed TDS returns, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fees can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to provident fund is paid before the due date of filing the return of income, it is deductible. This is because the amendment inserting Explanation 2 to section 43B is prospective and applies from AY 2021-22.

The Tribunal held that since the income was derived from property held for religious purposes and no violations under Section 13(1)(c) or (d) occurred, the tax should be levied at the rates applicable to an association of persons, which were the same as for individuals, not the maximum marginal rate.

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

The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied by the lower authorities. The assessee's failure to provide a reasonable cause for the delay was noted, and the CIT(A) was found to have rightly confirmed the penalty.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to prove the entire sum as incurred at approved rates, some excess payment during peak season was plausible given the remote location of cane growers. Therefore, a lump-sum disallowance was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is not absolute and must be read with Rule 6DD. Since the cash payments were part of the sale consideration, acknowledged by sellers, and made due to business exigencies or at the sellers' instance, no disallowance was warranted.

The Tribunal held that since the income was derived from property held for religious purposes and no violations under Section 13(1)(c) or (d) occurred, the tax should be levied at the rates applicable to an association of persons, which were the same as for individuals, not the maximum marginal rate.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained bank deposits should be restricted to the assessee's one-third share, as the bank account was jointly held. The remaining addition was upheld to this limited extent.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer took a possible view by invoking Section 69A for the unexplained cash deposits. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed the first ground of appeal, stating that the lower authorities had examined the assessee's audited books. The second ground was rejected as premature because a rectification petition was still pending before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that similar issues regarding excess cane price and concessional sugar sales had been restored to the Assessing Officer by a coordinate bench. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also restored the issue of cane development expenditure to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.