Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that the penalty under section 271D was barred by limitation as it was imposed after the prescribed deadline of 28.02.2023, with the order dated 29.03.2023 being invalid. Additionally, the reopening of assessment was quashed due to improper approval under section 151, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. Consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271D could not be sustained in the absence of a valid assessment order. The Tribunal relied on precedents confirming that penalty action does not survive when the assessment itself is invalid. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271D and the reassessment proceedings were set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT held that the penalty under section 271D was barred by limitation as it was imposed after the prescribed deadline of 28.02.2023, with the order dated 29.03.2023 being invalid. Additionally, the reopening of assessment was quashed due to improper approval under section 151, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. Consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271D could not be sustained in the absence of a valid assessment order. The Tribunal relied on precedents confirming that penalty action does not survive when the assessment itself is invalid. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271D and the reassessment proceedings were set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
