Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
Fraud classification show-cause notices founded on inconclusive forensic audit material cannot sustain action, permitting fresh proceedings on conclus...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
