https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25359 The High Court of Bombay ruled that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) for the assessment year 1966-67. The Court held that the amendment to section 274(2), which increased the minimum penalty threshold to over Rs. 25,000, applied to pending cases. As the reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was made after this amendment, the penalty imposition was deemed invalid. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to jurisdictional thresholds and procedural compliance in tax penalty assessments, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee. en-us Fri, 16 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:21:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25359 The High Court of Bombay ruled that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) for the assessment year 1966-67. The Court held that the amendment to section 274(2), which increased the minimum penalty threshold to over Rs. 25,000, applied to pending cases. As the reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was made after this amendment, the penalty imposition was deemed invalid. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to jurisdictional thresholds and procedural compliance in tax penalty assessments, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25359