This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
No Section 271D Penalty for cash received from commission agent against sale of crops
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Hardeep. Singh Vs JCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2014-15
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Chandigarh
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Hardeep. Singh Vs JCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
The issue under consideration is whether CIT is correct in charging penalty u/s 271D and 271E?
In the present case the Cash amount received or repaid by the assessee from the commission agent against the sale of the crops so it was neither the loan nor the deposit, therefore the provisions of Section 269SS and Section 269ST of the Act were not applicable and as such penalty levied by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271 D and 271E of the Act was not justified, accordingly the same is deleted.
Hence, Appeal filed by assessee is allo...






