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 ITAT held that the penalty order under section 271D was time-barred. The AO issued reference to the JCIT on 31.07.2019, and following Mahesh Wood Products, the penalty order should have been passed within six months (by 31.01.2020). Since the JCIT passed the order on 28.02.2020, it exceeded the prescribed limitation period under section 275(1)(c). The Tribunal determined this rendered the penalty order invalid. The second contention regarding non-submission of demand notice alongside the penalty order was deemed academic since the assessee had already succeeded on the first ground. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.
The ITAT held that the penalty order under section 271D was time-barred. The AO issued reference to the JCIT on 31.07.2019, and following Mahesh Wood Products, the penalty order should have been passed within six months (by 31.01.2020). Since the JCIT passed the order on 28.02.2020, it exceeded the prescribed limitation period under section 275(1)(c). The Tribunal determined this rendered the penalty order invalid. The second contention regarding non-submission of demand notice alongside the penalty order was deemed academic since the assessee had already succeeded on the first ground. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
