Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.