Loading ITAT cases…
62 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for levying fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of such fees was set aside.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for raising a demand for levying fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of fees was set aside.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for levying fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of such fees was set aside.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for levying fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of such fees was set aside.
The Tribunal held that there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for levying fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of such fees was set aside.
The Tribunal held that there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for levying fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of such fees was set aside.
The Tribunal held that if employee's EPF and ESIC contributions are deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, they cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B of the Act.
The Tribunal held that there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for levying fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of such fees was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.