Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
