ITAT held that penalty order u/s 271C was barred by limitation. ...

ITAT quashes time-barred penalty order u/s 271C due to limitation.

January 20, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

ITAT held that penalty order u/s 271C was barred by limitation. As per s. 275(1)(c), limitation began from date when AO recommended initiation of penalty proceedings to ACIT. Last date for passing penalty order was 30.06.2014, but it was passed on 14.07.2016, making it time-barred. Assessment order incorrectly initiated penalty for non-compliance of s. 192(1), while penalty order referred to ss. 194C/194J based on erroneous facts, showing non-application of mind. Revenue's appeal dismissed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

ITAT held that penalty order u/s 271C was barred by limitation. ...

ITAT quashes time-barred penalty order u/s 271C due to limitation.

January 20, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 144C(4) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax...

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...

The case involves a Section 9 application to determine if payment for ten invoices by the Operational Creditor was time-barred and if a preexisting dispute existed. The...

HC determined the reassessment notice issued on 30.07.2022 was time-barred under Section 149(1). While TOLA provided AO twenty-nine days limitation period from...

HC held that despite considering three block periods of limitation exclusion as per SC precedents, the re-assessment notice dated 23 July 2022 exceeded statutory...

Initiation of CIRP u/s 9 - time limitation - threshold limit of amount claimed - With respect to 234 invoices, which are payable within 30 days of the invoices, 224...

The ITAT held that the reassessment notice u/s 148 for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 was time-barred. For AY 2014-15, the assessee failed to respond within the two-week...

The ITAT quashed assessment orders for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 as time-barred, finding that the AO's reference to special audit under s.142(2A) was void ab initio since...

ITAT held that the transfer pricing order dated 12.01.2015 merged into the final assessment order dated 20.04.2015 for AY 2011-12 was quashed by CIT(A) as being passed...

The case pertains to the jurisdiction of impugned orders under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and the time limitation u/s 73 and Section 44 of the Act. The key points are:...

Refund claim was rejected as time-barred, having been filed beyond the one-year limitation period stipulated u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had...

Validity of order passed u/s 92CA - Transfer Pricing - Since the ld. TPO order has been passed on 30/10/2015 which is clearly barred by limitation by one day by virtue...

ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision that assessment order under s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B was time-barred. TPO reference under s.92CA(1) was made on 13.09.2021, with...

Initiation of CIRP - Period of limitation - It is clear that on the day of filing the petition U/S 7 of the Code, there was a subsisting liability on the corporate...

Assessee company failed to deduct tax at source as reflected in Tax Auditor's report. Demand u/s 201(1)/201(14) was barred by limitation. Assessee submitted that...

Quick Updates: