Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
