Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that corrected TDS statements filed before the later amendment could not be treated as time-barred, because no specific filing limit then applied, and the amendment in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 could not operate retrospectively. It also held that an appeal lay against the rectification order itself, so dismissal by the first appellate authority on limitation was unsustainable. On merits, the Tribunal held that fee under section 234E could not be levied through processing under section 200A for periods before 01.06.2015, because the enabling machinery came into force only from that date; the fee was deleted.
The ITAT held that corrected TDS statements filed before the later amendment could not be treated as time-barred, because no specific filing limit then applied, and the amendment in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 could not operate retrospectively. It also held that an appeal lay against the rectification order itself, so dismissal by the first appellate authority on limitation was unsustainable. On merits, the Tribunal held that fee under section 234E could not be levied through processing under section 200A for periods before 01.06.2015, because the enabling machinery came into force only from that date; the fee was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
