<?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>2023 (6) TMI 26 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438452</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act could not be enforced before 01/06/2015. Late fees for periods prior to this date were deleted. The Tribunal cited various High Court judgments to support its decision that Section 234E could not be applied retroactively. For assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the late fees were deleted, while for subsequent years, the late fees were upheld due to defaults occurring after the relevant amendment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2023 08:06:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=715213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 26 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438452</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act could not be enforced before 01/06/2015. Late fees for periods prior to this date were deleted. The Tribunal cited various High Court judgments to support its decision that Section 234E could not be applied retroactively. For assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the late fees were deleted, while for subsequent years, the late fees were upheld due to defaults occurring after the relevant amendment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>