Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The High Court held that the penalty order u/s 271D was barred by limitation as the order imposing penalty was required to be passed within six months from the end of the month in which the reference from the Assessing Officer was received by the competent authority. Since the reference was received on 18.01.2023, the penalty order should have been passed by 31.07.2023. However, the competent authority delayed the proceedings by asking for further documents after almost one year, which was beyond the permissible period. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty order was allowed by the High Court.
The High Court held that the penalty order u/s 271D was barred by limitation as the order imposing penalty was required to be passed within six months from the end of the month in which the reference from the Assessing Officer was received by the competent authority. Since the reference was received on 18.01.2023, the penalty order should have been passed by 31.07.2023. However, the competent authority delayed the proceedings by asking for further documents after almost one year, which was beyond the permissible period. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty order was allowed by the High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
