<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (2) TMI 1148 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180944</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, deleting the impugned levy of fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act. It held that the adjustment for the levy of fees under section 234E was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under section 200A. The ITAT emphasized that the authority did not have the power to impose a fee under section 234E. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, amendments, and limitations on adjustments permissible under section 200A, providing relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2016 10:21:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422593" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1148 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180944</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, deleting the impugned levy of fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act. It held that the adjustment for the levy of fees under section 234E was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under section 200A. The ITAT emphasized that the authority did not have the power to impose a fee under section 234E. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, amendments, and limitations on adjustments permissible under section 200A, providing relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>