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...
HC dismissed petition challenging penalty proceedings under s271DA. AO initiated proceedings via reference to Addl. CIT within 11 days of assessment order completion (08.04.2024), following assessment order dated 28.03.2024. Six-month limitation period commenced from reference date. Court held timing reasonable, rejecting petitioner's argument of arbitrary extension. While acknowledging that inordinate delays require scrutiny and reasonable timeframe applies where no specific limitation exists, HC found 11-day gap between assessment completion and penalty initiation well within acceptable bounds. Proceedings deemed within limitation period prescribed under s275(1)(c).
HC dismissed petition challenging penalty proceedings under s271DA. AO initiated proceedings via reference to Addl. CIT within 11 days of assessment order completion (08.04.2024), following assessment order dated 28.03.2024. Six-month limitation period commenced from reference date. Court held timing reasonable, rejecting petitioner's argument of arbitrary extension. While acknowledging that inordinate delays require scrutiny and reasonable timeframe applies where no specific limitation exists, HC found 11-day gap between assessment completion and penalty initiation well within acceptable bounds. Proceedings deemed within limitation period prescribed under s275(1)(c).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
