Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
Section 7 admission requires established financial debt and default, not precise interest quantification, while post-suspension defaults remain action...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96208 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
