Fair market value under section 50C must reflect existing property condition, not hypothetical development, and statutory valuation steps must be foll...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2021 to 2040 of 96177 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 allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the penalty order u/s 270A was barred by limitation prescribed u/s 275(1)(c). The Tribunal noted that penalty proceedings were initiated in December 2020, whether reckoned from the assessment order or from the penalty notice dated 08.12.2020. Consequently, the two possible limitation dates under s. 275(1)(c) were 31.03.2021 (end of the financial year) and 30.06.2021 (six months from the end of December 2020), with 30.06.2021 being the outer limit. As the penalty order was passed on 30.12.2021, it was held to be time-barred and without jurisdiction. The penalty was accordingly quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed in full.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the penalty order u/s 270A was barred by limitation prescribed u/s 275(1)(c). The Tribunal noted that penalty proceedings were initiated in December 2020, whether reckoned from the assessment order or from the penalty notice dated 08.12.2020. Consequently, the two possible limitation dates under s. 275(1)(c) were 31.03.2021 (end of the financial year) and 30.06.2021 (six months from the end of December 2020), with 30.06.2021 being the outer limit. As the penalty order was passed on 30.12.2021, it was held to be time-barred and without jurisdiction. The penalty was accordingly quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
