https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762737 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a partnership firm in real estate brokerage, by setting aside the impugned penalty order under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court determined that the penalty proceedings were time-barred under Section 275(1)(c) due to the delay by respondent no. 3 in initiating action after receiving the reference. The court emphasized that the penalty order should have been passed within six months from the date of receipt of the reference, rejecting the Revenue's argument for a later initiation date. Consequently, the penalty order was annulled, and any pending applications were disposed of. en-us Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Dec 2024 10:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762737 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a partnership firm in real estate brokerage, by setting aside the impugned penalty order under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court determined that the penalty proceedings were time-barred under Section 275(1)(c) due to the delay by respondent no. 3 in initiating action after receiving the reference. The court emphasized that the penalty order should have been passed within six months from the date of receipt of the reference, rejecting the Revenue's argument for a later initiation date. Consequently, the penalty order was annulled, and any pending applications were disposed of. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762737