Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
