The ITAT held that the penalty order under section 271D was ...

Penalty Order Under Section 271D Invalid as Time-Barred, Exceeding Six-Month Limitation Period Under Section 275(1)(c)

March 21, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

The ITAT held that the penalty order under section 271D was time-barred. The AO issued reference to the JCIT on 31.07.2019, and following Mahesh Wood Products, the penalty order should have been passed within six months (by 31.01.2020). Since the JCIT passed the order on 28.02.2020, it exceeded the prescribed limitation period under section 275(1)(c). The Tribunal determined this rendered the penalty order invalid. The second contention regarding non-submission of demand notice alongside the penalty order was deemed academic since the assessee had already succeeded on the first ground. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The ITAT held that the penalty order under section 271D was ...

Penalty Order Under Section 271D Invalid as Time-Barred, Exceeding Six-Month Limitation Period Under Section 275(1)(c)

March 21, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

The key points are regarding the penalty imposed u/s 271D read with Section 269SS, and the issue of whether the penalty orders were time-barred. The Assessing Officer...

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...

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...

GST Revenue collection in the month of April 2018 exceeds ₹ 1 Lakh Crore

HC upheld rejection of rectification application filed under Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Following precedent set in Hongo India Pvt Ltd case, court...

Period of limitation for passing the penalty order u/s 275(1)(a) - the limitation period for the levy of penalty will be as provided for under s. 275(1)(a), i.e., six...

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 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 High Court allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the order imposing penalty u/s 271DA for contravention of Section 269ST was passed beyond the statutory...

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - period of limitation - keeping in view factual matrix of the instant case, the MA ought to have been filed by assessee latest by 30.11....

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the rejection of an application for approval u/s 80G as time-barred. Provisional registration was introduced for newly formed trusts....

Levy of penalty u/s 271C - Period of limitation - In the present case, since penalty u/s 271C has not been initiated during the course of any proceedings, first part of...

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - barred by limitation - in view of express language of 1st proviso to Section 149(1), legislative mandate required that no notice could...

Penalty u/s 272A(2)(g) was levied for not issuing TDS certificates in Form 16A to deductees on time. The issue pertained to the period of limitation for issuing the...

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...

Quick Updates: