<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Penalty under s.271D for alleged s.269SS requires AO&#039;s recorded satisfaction; limitation starts when satisfaction embodied in assessment order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94266</link>
    <description>ITAT held that recording of satisfaction by the AO is a condition precedent to initiate penalty proceedings under s.271D for alleged contravention of s.269SS, and where the AO&#039;s satisfaction was embodied in the assessment order dated 30-12-2022 after statutory approval by the Addl. CIT, that date constitutes the date on which &quot;action for imposition of penalty is considered as initiated&quot; for purposes of s.275(1)(c). Applying the prescribed limitation, the penalty order had to be passed by 30-06-2023; the impugned penalty dated 31-08-2023 was therefore time-barred and held non est. The penalty order is quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:42:58 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty under s.271D for alleged s.269SS requires AO&#039;s recorded satisfaction; limitation starts when satisfaction embodied in assessment order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94266</link>
      <description>ITAT held that recording of satisfaction by the AO is a condition precedent to initiate penalty proceedings under s.271D for alleged contravention of s.269SS, and where the AO&#039;s satisfaction was embodied in the assessment order dated 30-12-2022 after statutory approval by the Addl. CIT, that date constitutes the date on which &quot;action for imposition of penalty is considered as initiated&quot; for purposes of s.275(1)(c). Applying the prescribed limitation, the penalty order had to be passed by 30-06-2023; the impugned penalty dated 31-08-2023 was therefore time-barred and held non est. The penalty order is quashed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:42:58 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>