Fair market value under section 50C must reflect existing property condition, not hypothetical development, and statutory valuation steps must be foll...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2021 to 2040 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC affirmed penalty proceedings under s271D were time-barred due to procedural delays. Initial reference by ITO on 16.11.2016 was followed by Show Cause Notice from Additional CIT only on 10.11.2017, with final penalty order issued on 22.02.2018. This exceeded statutory limitation period from reference date. Revenue provided no justification for delayed issuance of show cause notice. Court rejected Revenue's reliance on TAM TAM precedent as fact-specific, distinguishing it from present case. Tribunal's order upheld, finding proceedings initiated beyond limitation period invalid. Questions of law resolved in assessee's favor, invalidating penalty imposed for s269SS violations.
HC affirmed penalty proceedings under s271D were time-barred due to procedural delays. Initial reference by ITO on 16.11.2016 was followed by Show Cause Notice from Additional CIT only on 10.11.2017, with final penalty order issued on 22.02.2018. This exceeded statutory limitation period from reference date. Revenue provided no justification for delayed issuance of show cause notice. Court rejected Revenue's reliance on TAM TAM precedent as fact-specific, distinguishing it from present case. Tribunal's order upheld, finding proceedings initiated beyond limitation period invalid. Questions of law resolved in assessee's favor, invalidating penalty imposed for s269SS violations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.