Harvinder Singh Sehgal Vs ACIT (ITAT Guwahati)
Case ke facts
Harvinder Singh Sehgal par 5.68 crore ki penalty Section 271DA ke tahat lagayi gayi thi. Department cash receipt ka proof nahi de paya aur limitation period bhi cross ho gaya tha.
Mudda (Issue)
Kya penalty lag sakti hai jab cash receipt ka proof nahi hai aur limitation period cross ho chuka hai?
Faisla (Held)
ITAT ne penalty radd kar di kyunki department cash receipt prove nahi kar saka aur limitation period bhi nikal gaya tha.
Practical takeaway
Section 271DA ki penalty tabhi valid hai jab cash receipt ka solid proof ho aur time par notice di gayi ho.
Original report: TaxGuru
Aapke case mein bhi aisa hi mudda hai?
CGA ki team notice, appeal aur department proceedings mein kaam karti hai. Documents ke saath baat kariye.
WhatsApp par poochiyeIncome tax notice ka jawabAur Income Tax faisle
- Aditya Plastic Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)ITAT Rajkot · Section 151, Section 271(1)(b)
- Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)ITAT Hyderabad · Section 263, Section 14A
- ITO Vs NSL Nagapatnam Power Ventures Private Limited (ITAT Hyderabad)ITAT Hyderabad · Section 14A
- Sanjay Kalsi Vs Central Circle-04 (ITAT Delhi)ITAT Delhi · Section 271DA
- Sharda Jain Vs PCIT-1 (Chhattisgarh High Court)Chhattisgarh High Court · Section 148A(d), Section 148
- AEON Formulations Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)ITAT Chennai
Yeh summary public report par aadhaarit general jaankari hai, legal advice nahi. Poora faisla padhne ke liye original source dekhiye. Published on cgaindia.com: 2026-10-14.