Concessional Basic Customs Duty on Ethernet switches: classification as enterprise switches upheld, challenge dismissed for lack of substantial law qu...
Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
The principal issue was whether penalty orders under section 271E (and 271D) were time-barred under section 275(1)(c). The Tribunal held that section 275(1)(c) requires either expiry of the relevant financial year after assessment or lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the Assessing Officer referred the matter for imposition of penalty; the six-month period is computed from the AO's reference, and the approval or issuance of a show-cause notice by a higher authority is irrelevant. Applying that interpretation, the penalty orders for the assessment years in question were held time-barred and the appeals were allowed. - ITAT
The principal issue was whether penalty orders under section 271E (and 271D) were time-barred under section 275(1)(c). The Tribunal held that section 275(1)(c) requires either expiry of the relevant financial year after assessment or lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the Assessing Officer referred the matter for imposition of penalty; the six-month period is computed from the AO's reference, and the approval or issuance of a show-cause notice by a higher authority is irrelevant. Applying that interpretation, the penalty orders for the assessment years in question were held time-barred and the appeals were allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
