Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 275 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii, ... vs M/S.U.B. Electronic Instruments Ltd., ... on 12 November, 2014
11. The Ld. CIT(A) held that since there is no time period prescribed in the Act
for initiating and imposition of penalty u/s 271C, the reasonable time period as
has been held by various courts to be 4 years from the end of financial year in
which the default occurred. In the instant case, the notice has been issued
beyond the period of 4 years and as the same is time barred. The Ld. CIT(A)
relied on various decisions in CIT vs. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigal Ltd. 345 ITR 552 (H.P.),
in CIT Vs. U.B. Electronic Instruments Ltd. 371 ITR 314 (AP), M/s Jet Lite (India) Ltd
379 ITR 185 (Del.)
Section 271B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam ... on 28 July, 2017
11. The Ld. CIT(A) held that since there is no time period prescribed in the Act
for initiating and imposition of penalty u/s 271C, the reasonable time period as
has been held by various courts to be 4 years from the end of financial year in
which the default occurred. In the instant case, the notice has been issued
beyond the period of 4 years and as the same is time barred. The Ld. CIT(A)
relied on various decisions in CIT vs. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigal Ltd. 345 ITR 552 (H.P.),
in CIT Vs. U.B. Electronic Instruments Ltd. 371 ITR 314 (AP), M/s Jet Lite (India) Ltd
379 ITR 185 (Del.)
Section 221 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) vs M/S Ikea Trading Hong Kong Ltd on 16 January, 2009
and in case of Subodh Kumar Bhargava 309 ITR 31 and CIT vs.
Ikea Trading Hong Kong Limited 333 ITR 565 for determination of time limit. Thus
the notice issued by the JCIT-TDS and the penalty order passed are barred by
limitation.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
1