Search Results For: 275(1A)


ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 275(1)(a): Law on time limit for passing penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) explained. Challenge by assessee to validity of penalty order entertained in Dept's appeal despite lack of C. O. /cross-appeal by assessee

On a combined reading of Section 275(1)(a) along with its proviso it becomes clear that main section 275(1)(a) talks of a period of six months from the date on which the order is received by commissioner and main section also talks of orders passed by commissioner appeals as well as by tribunal talk whereas the proviso which is applicable from 01.06.2003 talks about orders passed by Commissioner Appeals only and here, the period of limitation for passing penalty order is one year from the date Commissioner receives Tribunal order

ITO vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 275(1)(a): For penalty proceedings initiated on issues unrelated to assessment of income (such as for s. 269SS/ 269T & TDS defaults), time limit runs from date of initiation of penalty proceedings and not from date of CIT(A)'s order

Since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under sections 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it, therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceedings or the other proceedings during which the penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings

Shanti Enterprise vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 21, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 275(1A): Assessee's claim for refund of penalty with interest cannot be defeated by inaction of revenue

(i) What is provided by Section 275(1A) is that the order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling the penalty may be passed on the basis of the assessment as revised by giving effect to the order in appeal. The

Top