Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
