Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
