Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The key points are regarding the penalty imposed u/s 271D read with Section 269SS, and the issue of whether the penalty orders were time-barred. The Assessing Officer made a recommendation for initiating penalty on 08/12/2017. According to Section 275(1)(c), the first condition is that the financial year in which the penalty proceedings were initiated should have expired on 31/03/2018. The second condition is that six months from the end of the month in which the action for penalty imposition was initiated should have expired on 30/06/2018. However, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) initiated the penalty on 07/07/2018, despite the recommendation being made on 08/12/2017. Therefore, the penalty orders are barred by the limitation period prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the orders imposing penalty were deleted, and the decision was against the revenue authorities.
The key points are regarding the penalty imposed u/s 271D read with Section 269SS, and the issue of whether the penalty orders were time-barred. The Assessing Officer made a recommendation for initiating penalty on 08/12/2017. According to Section 275(1)(c), the first condition is that the financial year in which the penalty proceedings were initiated should have expired on 31/03/2018. The second condition is that six months from the end of the month in which the action for penalty imposition was initiated should have expired on 30/06/2018. However, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) initiated the penalty on 07/07/2018, despite the recommendation being made on 08/12/2017. Therefore, the penalty orders are barred by the limitation period prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the orders imposing penalty were deleted, and the decision was against the revenue authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
