Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that penalty order u/s 271C was barred by limitation. As per s. 275(1)(c), limitation began from date when AO recommended initiation of penalty proceedings to ACIT. Last date for passing penalty order was 30.06.2014, but it was passed on 14.07.2016, making it time-barred. Assessment order incorrectly initiated penalty for non-compliance of s. 192(1), while penalty order referred to ss. 194C/194J based on erroneous facts, showing non-application of mind. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
ITAT held that penalty order u/s 271C was barred by limitation. As per s. 275(1)(c), limitation began from date when AO recommended initiation of penalty proceedings to ACIT. Last date for passing penalty order was 30.06.2014, but it was passed on 14.07.2016, making it time-barred. Assessment order incorrectly initiated penalty for non-compliance of s. 192(1), while penalty order referred to ss. 194C/194J based on erroneous facts, showing non-application of mind. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
