Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that late filing fee u/s 234E was not leviable on the assessee. The assessee had filed the relevant return within the due date on 22.10.2021, which was acknowledged by the Central Processing Centre. The subsequent filing on 26.07.2022 was due to a technical glitch on the department's portal to facilitate issuance of TDS certificates for clients. The Tribunal ruled that the return filed on 22.10.2021 cannot be ignored, and late filing fee cannot be levied on the return filed on 26.07.2022. Consequently, the late filing fee imposed was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that late filing fee u/s 234E was not leviable on the assessee. The assessee had filed the relevant return within the due date on 22.10.2021, which was acknowledged by the Central Processing Centre. The subsequent filing on 26.07.2022 was due to a technical glitch on the department's portal to facilitate issuance of TDS certificates for clients. The Tribunal ruled that the return filed on 22.10.2021 cannot be ignored, and late filing fee cannot be levied on the return filed on 26.07.2022. Consequently, the late filing fee imposed was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
