Agreement-date stamp valuation requires the same registered property, fixed consideration, and qualifying payment; an unrelated prior booking cannot a...
Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 97809 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB initiated in order u/s 143(3) became time-barred on 30.9.2017 as no substantive order was passed within statutory limitation period under section 275(1)(a). The Tribunal found the penalty notice defective for failing to specify precise grounds of concealment. Consequently, the penalty order levied on Rs. 1 crore addition was deleted. The assessee's appeal was allowed, effectively quashing the penalty proceedings due to procedural irregularities and limitation constraints in initiating and concluding penalty action.
ITAT held that penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB initiated in order u/s 143(3) became time-barred on 30.9.2017 as no substantive order was passed within statutory limitation period under section 275(1)(a). The Tribunal found the penalty notice defective for failing to specify precise grounds of concealment. Consequently, the penalty order levied on Rs. 1 crore addition was deleted. The assessee's appeal was allowed, effectively quashing the penalty proceedings due to procedural irregularities and limitation constraints in initiating and concluding penalty action.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
