Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
