Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Admissibility of electronic evidence controls valuation and penalty exposure; non compliant e records and statements nullify revaluation and penalties...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
