https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786175 A penalty under section 271D was imposed while the assessment's quantum was under challenge before the ITAT; the HC held that established Bombay HC precedents require penalty proceedings to be kept in abeyance until the ITAT decides the quantum, and therefore the impugned penalty order could not lawfully be passed while the quantum appeal remained pending. As a consequence the writ petition was allowed and the penalty order set aside, directing that penalty proceedings await the outcome of the quantum adjudication. en-us Tue, 03 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Feb 2026 07:19:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786175 A penalty under section 271D was imposed while the assessment's quantum was under challenge before the ITAT; the HC held that established Bombay HC precedents require penalty proceedings to be kept in abeyance until the ITAT decides the quantum, and therefore the impugned penalty order could not lawfully be passed while the quantum appeal remained pending. As a consequence the writ petition was allowed and the penalty order set aside, directing that penalty proceedings await the outcome of the quantum adjudication. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786175