Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
