Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty order under Section 271B, holding it void ab initio for being time-barred. The penalty notice was issued on 25.12.2019, requiring the penalty order to be passed by 30.06.2020 per Section 275(1)(c). However, the Assessing Officer passed the order on 30.07.2021, exceeding the statutory limitation period. The tribunal ruled that the penalty order was passed without jurisdiction and beyond prescribed time limits, violating procedural requirements and statutory conditions for penalty imposition. The order suffered from legal infirmity and could not be sustained, resulting in its complete set-aside.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty order under Section 271B, holding it void ab initio for being time-barred. The penalty notice was issued on 25.12.2019, requiring the penalty order to be passed by 30.06.2020 per Section 275(1)(c). However, the Assessing Officer passed the order on 30.07.2021, exceeding the statutory limitation period. The tribunal ruled that the penalty order was passed without jurisdiction and beyond prescribed time limits, violating procedural requirements and statutory conditions for penalty imposition. The order suffered from legal infirmity and could not be sustained, resulting in its complete set-aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.