Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the order imposing penalty u/s 271DA for contravention of Section 269ST was passed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed u/s 275(1)(c). The court observed that the penalty proceedings are initiated on the date of receipt of the reference by the competent authority from the Assessing Officer. Since the reference was received on 24.03.2023, the order imposing penalty should have been passed within six months from the end of that month. However, the competent authority delayed the proceedings by almost a year by seeking further documents, which was beyond the prescribed period for passing the penalty order. Consequently, the impugned penalty order was held to be barred by limitation.
The High Court allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the order imposing penalty u/s 271DA for contravention of Section 269ST was passed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed u/s 275(1)(c). The court observed that the penalty proceedings are initiated on the date of receipt of the reference by the competent authority from the Assessing Officer. Since the reference was received on 24.03.2023, the order imposing penalty should have been passed within six months from the end of that month. However, the competent authority delayed the proceedings by almost a year by seeking further documents, which was beyond the prescribed period for passing the penalty order. Consequently, the impugned penalty order was held to be barred by limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.