Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted where income was disclosed in section 153A returns and remaining additions were only estimated or computationa...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4561 to 4580 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under section 271C was held unsustainable where the order was passed beyond the six-month limit prescribed by section 275(1)(c), as fiscal limitation provisions must be strictly applied and penalty cannot be imposed after expiry of that period. The tribunal also noted that the alleged default arose from a disallowance treated as interest-related expenditure, yet the reference for penalty was made after an inordinate 18-month delay. That delay was found to defeat the object of section 275(1)(c), and the penalty order, as well as the appellate affirmation, was set aside and the penalty deleted.
Penalty under section 271C was held unsustainable where the order was passed beyond the six-month limit prescribed by section 275(1)(c), as fiscal limitation provisions must be strictly applied and penalty cannot be imposed after expiry of that period. The tribunal also noted that the alleged default arose from a disallowance treated as interest-related expenditure, yet the reference for penalty was made after an inordinate 18-month delay. That delay was found to defeat the object of section 275(1)(c), and the penalty order, as well as the appellate affirmation, was set aside and the penalty deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.