Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3001 to 3020 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In a penalty matter under section 271D, the ITAT held that limitation under section 275(1)(c) runs from the Assessing Officer's reference initiating penalty action, not from the later notice issued by the Additional Commissioner. After noting conflicting High Court views, it followed the later Karnataka High Court position and also applied the principle that, where two non-jurisdictional interpretations are possible, the one favourable to the assessee must be adopted. As the penalty order was passed beyond the permissible period from the date of initiation, the penalty was time-barred and was quashed.
In a penalty matter under section 271D, the ITAT held that limitation under section 275(1)(c) runs from the Assessing Officer's reference initiating penalty action, not from the later notice issued by the Additional Commissioner. After noting conflicting High Court views, it followed the later Karnataka High Court position and also applied the principle that, where two non-jurisdictional interpretations are possible, the one favourable to the assessee must be adopted. As the penalty order was passed beyond the permissible period from the date of initiation, the penalty was time-barred and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
