Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
ITAT held that recording of satisfaction by the AO is a condition precedent to initiate penalty proceedings under s.271D for alleged contravention of s.269SS, and where the AO's satisfaction was embodied in the assessment order dated 30-12-2022 after statutory approval by the Addl. CIT, that date constitutes the date on which "action for imposition of penalty is considered as initiated" for purposes of s.275(1)(c). Applying the prescribed limitation, the penalty order had to be passed by 30-06-2023; the impugned penalty dated 31-08-2023 was therefore time-barred and held non est. The penalty order is quashed.
ITAT held that recording of satisfaction by the AO is a condition precedent to initiate penalty proceedings under s.271D for alleged contravention of s.269SS, and where the AO's satisfaction was embodied in the assessment order dated 30-12-2022 after statutory approval by the Addl. CIT, that date constitutes the date on which "action for imposition of penalty is considered as initiated" for purposes of s.275(1)(c). Applying the prescribed limitation, the penalty order had to be passed by 30-06-2023; the impugned penalty dated 31-08-2023 was therefore time-barred and held non est. The penalty order is quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
