The issue was whether late-fee under Section 234E could be levied while processing TDS returns before 01-06-2015. The Tribunal held that without Section 200A(1)(c), such levy was without authority of law.
Chennai ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order under Section 263, confirming that when the AO adopts a plausible view and conducts proper scrutiny, revision is unwarranted.
The ITAT held that CPC and CIT(A) acted prematurely in denying section 80P deduction while a section 119 condonation application was awaiting decision. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after condonation is decided.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29-03-2022 violated the mandatory faceless reassessment scheme. Such a jurisdictional lapse vitiates the entire proceedings.
Chennai ITAT held that dismissing appeals as non-maintainable was erroneous. Orders giving effect to appellate directions retain their character as assessment orders.
The Tribunal ruled that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-compliance and must decide it on merits, leading to remand for fresh assessment.
The ITAT ruled that section 269SS targets cash advances in property deals, not final sale consideration paid at registration. Penalty under section 271D was therefore not leviable.
The issue was whether appeals could be dismissed outright for delay without examining the merits. The Tribunal held that justice required restoration where plausible reasons for delay were cited and directed reconsideration.
The issue was whether appeals dismissed for an extraordinary delay could be restored. The Tribunal held that, despite the assessee’s lapses, justice required giving an opportunity to seek condonation and have the case decided on merits.
The issue was whether a short delay in filing an appeal justified outright dismissal. The Tribunal held that illness supported by medical evidence constituted reasonable cause and restored the appeal for merits adjudication.
