Subramanian Manoharan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Case ke facts
Subramanian Manoharan ka case tha. Unpe ₹3 lakh ka penalty laga tha cash loan lene ki wajah se. Department ne yeh penalty 6 mahine ki limit ke baad pass ki.
Mudda (Issue)
Kya limitation ke baad Section 271D penalty valid hai?
Faisla (Held)
ITAT ne penalty radd kar di. Judge ne kaha, law ke mutabiq 6 mahine ke andar order pass hona chahiye.
Practical takeaway
Agar Section 271D ki penalty hai, to dekho order time par pass hua tha ya nahi. Limitation rule ka faida utha sakte 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
- Azure Power Uranus Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)ITAT Delhi · Section 263, Section 270A
- Bestone Industries Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)ITAT Delhi
- Kalpana Misra Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)ITAT Delhi
- Param Dairy Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)ITAT Delhi · Section 271AAB
- Sh. Jagjeet Singh Vs DCIT ACIT (ITAT Amritsar)ITAT Amritsar · Section 263
- Veena Chadha Vs Assessing Officer (ITAT Delhi)ITAT Delhi · Section 54
Yeh summary public report par aadhaarit general jaankari hai, legal advice nahi. Poora faisla padhne ke liye original source dekhiye. Published on cgaindia.com: 2026-09-14.