Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The ITAT held that the penalty imposed under sections 271D and 271E was invalid as the penalty order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 275(1)(c). The statute mandates that penalty proceedings must be completed either by the later of two periods: March 31 following the financial year in which the assessment proceedings concluded, or within six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Since the penalty order was passed on January 31, 2024, exceeding the prescribed deadline of June 30, 2023, it was held time-barred. Reliance on precedent confirmed that penalties imposed after the prescribed limitation period are not sustainable. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed, and the appellant's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that the penalty imposed under sections 271D and 271E was invalid as the penalty order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 275(1)(c). The statute mandates that penalty proceedings must be completed either by the later of two periods: March 31 following the financial year in which the assessment proceedings concluded, or within six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Since the penalty order was passed on January 31, 2024, exceeding the prescribed deadline of June 30, 2023, it was held time-barred. Reliance on precedent confirmed that penalties imposed after the prescribed limitation period are not sustainable. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed, and the appellant's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
