https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764590 ITAT Hyderabad held that penalty under section 271D was invalid due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record satisfaction prior to initiating penalty proceedings. The tribunal distinguished between satisfaction recorded in the penalty order versus satisfaction required as a prerequisite for initiation. Following Supreme Court precedent in Jai Lakshmi Rice Mills and Telangana HC in Sreenivasa Ready Reddeppagari, the tribunal ruled that prior recording of satisfaction is mandatory. The penalty was deleted and the issue was decided in favor of the assessee. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764590 ITAT Hyderabad held that penalty under section 271D was invalid due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record satisfaction prior to initiating penalty proceedings. The tribunal distinguished between satisfaction recorded in the penalty order versus satisfaction required as a prerequisite for initiation. Following Supreme Court precedent in Jai Lakshmi Rice Mills and Telangana HC in Sreenivasa Ready Reddeppagari, the tribunal ruled that prior recording of satisfaction is mandatory. The penalty was deleted and the issue was decided in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764590