Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
