Preliminary reassessment proceedings generally require statutory remedies unless jurisdiction is wholly absent or mandatory conditions are patently br...
Agricultural land classification requires cumulative factual indicators, while industrial-purpose land and absent agricultural use defeat reinvestment...
Assessment against an entity that had ceased to exist prior to the initiation of proceedings. The effect of a change in name was considered a curable defect u/s 292B, as decided in Sky Light Hospitality LLP, wherein the Supreme Court held that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error that could be corrected. Since there was no change in the entity, only a change in the company's name, the Show Cause Notice and Penalty Order issued in the name of M/s. Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd. were not fatal defects and could be cured. The penalty order imposed beyond the limitation period was addressed. The survey was conducted in January 2008 to verify TDS deduction and deposit, and the AO passed the order on 30.03.2011, referring the penalty proceedings. The last date for passing the penalty order was 30.09.2011, as per Section 275(1)(c). However, the penalty order was passed on 29.07.2013, beyond the limitation period. The ITAT correctly deleted the penalty levied by the AO on the ground that the penalty order dated 29.07.2013 was passed after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated, as required by Section 275(1)(c). The decision was in favor.
Assessment against an entity that had ceased to exist prior to the initiation of proceedings. The effect of a change in name was considered a curable defect u/s 292B, as decided in Sky Light Hospitality LLP, wherein the Supreme Court held that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error that could be corrected. Since there was no change in the entity, only a change in the company's name, the Show Cause Notice and Penalty Order issued in the name of M/s. Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd. were not fatal defects and could be cured. The penalty order imposed beyond the limitation period was addressed. The survey was conducted in January 2008 to verify TDS deduction and deposit, and the AO passed the order on 30.03.2011, referring the penalty proceedings. The last date for passing the penalty order was 30.09.2011, as per Section 275(1)(c). However, the penalty order was passed on 29.07.2013, beyond the limitation period. The ITAT correctly deleted the penalty levied by the AO on the ground that the penalty order dated 29.07.2013 was passed after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated, as required by Section 275(1)(c). The decision was in favor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
