Income Tax : Covers the latest cash withdrawal, deposit, and loan limits. Takeaway: exceeding thresholds can trigger TDS, penalties, and blocke...
Income Tax : Explains when director cash infusions qualify as current account transactions and why genuine business support may fall outside Se...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be imposed when the assessment order lacks recorded satisfaction of a 26...
Income Tax : Summary of income-tax rules on cash limits, including disallowance of cash expenditure, restrictions on loans, deposits, receipts,...
Income Tax : Indian tax law restricts cash transactions to promote digital payments. Limits apply to expense payments (Sec 40A(3): ₹10k/day),...
Income Tax : DON’T √ Accept cash of Rs. 2,00,000 or more in aggregate from a single person in a day or for one or more transactions r...
Income Tax : It is suggested that there should be a positive provision under the I.T. Act that any transaction involving more than Rs.3,00,000/...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that Section 269SS does not apply when cash is received as part of final sale consideration at the time of prope...
Income Tax : The tribunal examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating ...
Income Tax : The Court issued notice in a plea to quash criminal proceedings where the applicant argued that alleged cash payments exceeding ...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s order setting aside penalty under Section 271D due to absence of re...
Income Tax : The High Court held that penalty under Section 271D cannot be levied without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regardin...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
Income Tax : In the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in Appendix II, in Form No. 3CD, for serial number 31 and the entries relating thereto the followin...
Fema / RBI : Section 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the requirements under the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended from time to time,...
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS does not apply when cash is received as part of final sale consideration at the time of property registration. Since no advance was involved, penalty under Section 271D was deleted.
The tribunal examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating them. It ruled that absence of such satisfaction makes the penalties invalid in law.
The Court issued notice in a plea to quash criminal proceedings where the applicant argued that alleged cash payments exceeding ₹2 lakh should first be examined under Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s order setting aside penalty under Section 271D due to absence of recorded satisfaction under Section 269SS. The SLP was dismissed on grounds of delay and merits.
The High Court held that penalty under Section 271D cannot be levied without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regarding violation of Section 269SS. In the absence of such finding in the assessment order, the penalty was set aside.
ITAT held that cash loans taken for son’s education were bona fide and supported by evidence. Reasonable cause under Section 273B justified deletion of penalty.
The ITAT Kolkata held that cash introduced by partners as capital contribution in an LLP does not attract Section 269SS and therefore penalty under Section 271D was invalid.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash received as part of sale consideration for immovable property does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271D if reasonable cause is established under Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that cash received at the time of executing a registered sale deed does not fall within the definition of “specified sum” under Section 269SS. Since the provision primarily targets advances in property transactions, penalty under Section 271D was unsustainable.
The High Court held that courts must intimate the Income Tax Department when suits involve cash transactions exceeding Rs.2 lakh. However, it ruled that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to disclose his PAN number to defendants.
