Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
