Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
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 4811 
Join Channel 
