« From the Courts » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Karnataka High Court restrains Bengaluru-based Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India from enrolling candidates for its courses  Attachment on Cash Credit of Assessee under GST Act: Delhi HC directs Bank to Comply Instructions to Vacate  Income Tax Addition Made Towards Unsubstantiated Share Capital Is Eligible For Section 80-IC Deduction: Delhi High Court  Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings  Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT  Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.  ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand  Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities  [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court  Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger  Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court «  Courts, colleges closed; RTC services improve... Mega security cover for High Court from Monday... » CIT vs. Mohair Investment & Trading Co (Delhi High Court) October, 10th 2011 provides that no order imposing penalty shall be passed after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the quantum order of the CIT (A) or Tribunal is received by the CIT. The Proviso to s. 275(1)(a),as inserted by the FA 2003, provides that if the CIT (A) passes the order on the quantum appeal on or after 1.6.2003, the order imposing penalty has to be passed before the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the CIT (A) is received by the CIT. The Tribunal held that the effect of the Proviso was that one could only have regard to the order of the CIT (A) for determining limitation. The fact that an appeal was pending before the Tribunal was irrelevant. It accordingly held that the penalty order having been passed after 1 year of receipt of the CIT (A)s order was barred by limitation. On appeal by the department, HELD reversing the Tribunal: The period of six months provided for imposition of penalty u/s 275(1)(a) starts running after the successive appeals from an assessment order have been finally decided by the CIT(A) or the ITAT. The proviso to s. 275(1)(a) extends the period for imposing penalty from six months to one year of the receipt of the CIT (A)s order after 1.6.2003. The proviso carves out an exception from the main section inasmuch as in cases where no appeal is filed before the ITAT the AO must impose penalty within a period of one year of the date of receipt of the CIT (A)s order. To read the provision as suggested by the assessee would obliterate the main provision itself. A proviso is merely a subsidiary to the main section and must be construed harmoniously with the main provision. The proviso to s. 275(1)(a) does not nullify the availability to the AO of the period of limitation of six months from the end of the month when the order of the ITAT is received (Rayala Corporation 288 ITR 452 (Mad) followed).