Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
The ITAT held that the penalty proceedings under section 271C were time-barred as the penalty order was passed beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under section 275(1)(c) from the date the AO referred the matter to the Addl. CIT. Since the reference was made on 10.10.2016, the penalty order issued thereafter exceeded the statutory limitation period. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed as being invalid and barred by limitation. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed accordingly.
The ITAT held that the penalty proceedings under section 271C were time-barred as the penalty order was passed beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under section 275(1)(c) from the date the AO referred the matter to the Addl. CIT. Since the reference was made on 10.10.2016, the penalty order issued thereafter exceeded the statutory limitation period. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed as being invalid and barred by limitation. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
