Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3481 to 3500 of 96556 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 4828 
Join Channel 
