Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4828 
Join Channel 
