| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
January 1, 2009 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Limitation period for levy of penalty
Though s. 275(1) (c) provides that the limitation for levy of penalty shall be “after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later”, in a case where the initiation of action for imposition of penalty is not in the course of some proceedings (e.g. penalty u/s 271B for failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB and non-filing of audit report), the first part of s. 275(1)(c) would have no application and it is only the period of limitation prescribed in the second part which would apply. Since only one period of limitation would be applicable, the expression “whichever period expires later” would have to be read as that very period of limitation.
Related Posts:
- PCIT (Central) - 3 vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (Delhi High Court) Now, coming to the aspect viz the invocation of section 153A on the basis of the statement recorded in search action against a third person. We may note that the AO has used this statement on oath recorded in the course of search conducted in the case of a third…
- Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The contention of the assessee that he has purchased the shares through banking channel and as such, when the purchase is genuine then sale cannot be questioned, is not tenable because the entire transaction of sale and purchase is to be seen in entirety in the light of the attending…
- Sajan Kumar Jain vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In our considered opinion, once a valid return of income was available on record, which was already processed issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act asking the assessee to furnish fresh notice in itself is invalid making subsequently proceedings void ab initio.
- Suresh Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) All these information could have been obtained by the assessing officer by issue of 133 (6) notice to the depository as well as to the stock exchange and the respective broker. However, despite having the basic information available with the assessing officer he has chosen to sit and become a…
- Prabir Kumar Shaw vs. UOI (Patna High Court) This Court, in a number of cases, has defined the scope and ambit of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A High Court, exercising its power under the aforesaid section, has an inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which…
- PCIT vs. Binod Kumar Singh (Bombay High Court) In that view of the matter, clause (a) of Section 6(1) would not apply. It is true that in absence of clause (b) of Explanation 1 below Section 6(1) of the Act, the assessee would have fulfilled the requirements of clause (c) of Section 6(1). However, as per the explanation,…
Recent Comments