Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
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 4809 
Join Channel 
