https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248143 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act applied to the penalty order under Section 271D, making the penalty order dated 10.03.2012 invalid due to being beyond the prescribed time limit. Additionally, the court clarified that no violation of Section 269SS occurred as the transactions were conducted through banking channels and recorded as book entries, following the precedent set in the Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. case. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the independence of penalty proceedings from assessment proceedings and the necessity to adhere to specific timelines under Section 275(1)(c). en-us Wed, 21 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248143 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act applied to the penalty order under Section 271D, making the penalty order dated 10.03.2012 invalid due to being beyond the prescribed time limit. Additionally, the court clarified that no violation of Section 269SS occurred as the transactions were conducted through banking channels and recorded as book entries, following the precedent set in the Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. case. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the independence of penalty proceedings from assessment proceedings and the necessity to adhere to specific timelines under Section 275(1)(c). Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248143