Permanent Establishment and Business Connection: foreign consultancy receipts not attributable where no fixed base or corporate veil piercing establis...
Limitation period commencement and procedural inquiry rules: identity-based limitation upheld; complaints by authorised public servants need not attra...
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 
