Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
