Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
