https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183097 The ITAT dismissed all Revenue appeals concerning penalty orders for A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2009-10, ruling that the orders were barred by limitation under Section 275. The ITAT held that the penalty orders should have been passed within a specified timeframe, as per legal precedent from a Delhi High Court judgment. Despite the Ld.CIT(A) finding the penalty orders timely, the ITAT determined that they exceeded the prescribed limitation period, leading to the dismissal of all Revenue appeals based on the limitation issue. en-us Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 May 2016 10:03:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183097 The ITAT dismissed all Revenue appeals concerning penalty orders for A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2009-10, ruling that the orders were barred by limitation under Section 275. The ITAT held that the penalty orders should have been passed within a specified timeframe, as per legal precedent from a Delhi High Court judgment. Despite the Ld.CIT(A) finding the penalty orders timely, the ITAT determined that they exceeded the prescribed limitation period, leading to the dismissal of all Revenue appeals based on the limitation issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183097