Penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E - Period of limitation - ...

Penalty Orders u/ss 271D and 271E Invalid Due to Issuance Beyond Limitation Period.

October 17, 2022

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E - Period of limitation - Apparently in this case, the first notice was issued on 15.12.2013 and second notice was issued on 16.01.2014 are identical. Therefore, from the date of notice dated 15.12.2013, the penalty order should have been passed on or before 30th June 2004 but were passed on 30th July 2014. Therefore, both the orders of the penalty are barred by limitation. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E - Period of limitation - ...

Penalty Orders u/ss 271D and 271E Invalid Due to Issuance Beyond Limitation Period.

October 17, 2022

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271D or 271E - Penalty u/s.271D or 271E of the Act is concerned, those are independent proceedings and having nothing to do with assessment proceedings or...

Levy of penalties u/s 271D and 271E for the violation of sections 269SS and 269T, respectively - The Tribunal, after reviewing precedents from the Supreme Court and...

Penalty u/s.271D & 271E - Period of limitation for imposing penalty u/s 275(1)(c) - he discussion by the AO in the assessment order and making reference to the Addl. CIT...

Penalty proceedings u/s 271D, 271E and 271AAA - period of limitation - the period of six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty was...

Levy of penalty u/ss 271D and 271E was challenged - default u/ss 269SS and 269T - assessee received and repaid cash loans from directors and related concerns - assessee...

ITAT determined assessment order under sections 263/143(3)/147 was time-barred and invalid. Though AO passed order on 30.12.2015, it was served to assessee on...

The case involved a challenge to penalty orders u/ss 271D and 271E before the Appellate Tribunal. The issue revolved around the reassessment proceedings being quashed,...

The case pertains to penalty proceedings u/s 271D for violating Section 269SS and Section 271E of the Income Tax Act. The assessee received Rs. 18 lakh from a trustee...

Levy of penalties under various sections - The Appellate Tribunal, in a consolidated order, addressed several appeals concerning penalties imposed under various sections...

The ITAT held that for penalty u/s 271D for contravention of section 269SS, recording satisfaction by AO is mandatory. Citing Jaya Laxmi Rice Mills case, it emphasized...

HC ruled penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E require explicit satisfaction to be recorded by Assessing Officer during reassessment. Mere recording of...

The High Court held that the penalty order u/s 271D was barred by limitation as the order imposing penalty was required to be passed within six months from the end of...

Period of limitation for levy of penalty - Penalty proceedings u/s 271D - penalty order, was passed beyond the time period prescribed by Section 275(1)(c) - the same...

HC held reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 were invalid due to statutory limitation u/s 149. The original notice was set aside for lacking mandatory approvals...

Penalty u/s 271D / 271E - violation of provisions of Sec.269SS and 269T - basis of presumption u/s 132(4A) - Period of limitation - The Tribunal found that the penalty...

Quick Updates: