Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
