https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347617 The High Court held that penalty orders under sections 271D and 271E were not time-barred as the limitation period should start from the issuance of the notice by the Joint Commissioner. The court found that the penalty proceedings were independent of assessment proceedings. Regarding the merits of the penalty, the court determined that the Addl. CIT did not adequately prove the transactions were loans or deposits, remanding the matter for further examination. The appeals by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes, and the cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed, leading to a fresh review by the CIT(A). en-us Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Sep 2017 14:03:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347617 The High Court held that penalty orders under sections 271D and 271E were not time-barred as the limitation period should start from the issuance of the notice by the Joint Commissioner. The court found that the penalty proceedings were independent of assessment proceedings. Regarding the merits of the penalty, the court determined that the Addl. CIT did not adequately prove the transactions were loans or deposits, remanding the matter for further examination. The appeals by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes, and the cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed, leading to a fresh review by the CIT(A). Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347617