Income Tax : The provisions regulate acceptance, payment, and receipt of cash beyond specified limits. They impose strict penalties to discoura...
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 : 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 enhancement of income without issuing notice under section 251(2) is invalid. Such action violates principl...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that Section 50C may not apply if properties are held as stock-in-trade. It remanded the case to verify whether ...
Income Tax : The issue was whether rejection of books and GP estimation was justified due to missing records. ITAT upheld the addition, ruling ...
Income Tax : The issue was whether demonetisation cash deposits can be taxed as unexplained credits solely due to use of SBN. The ITAT held tha...
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 : 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,...
Section 271D penalty proceeding cannot be initiated if AO fail to record his satisfaction before initiating penalty penalty proceeding in respect of violation of provisions of section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Read the full text of the judgment/order of Orissa High Court in the case of Surjit Kumar Dhal vs State of Odisha (EOW). Senior journalist accused of duping Rs.1 crore for approvals.
In the case of SVT Wholesale Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT, the ITAT Bangalore evaluates the penalty imposed under Section 271D for violating Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn about the legal arguments, precedents, and the tribunal’s decision.
Chennai ITAT ruled that receiving a huge sale consideration in cash violates Sec 269SS, warranting penalty under Sec 271D. Case analysis of Nammalvar Lingusamy Vs ACIT.
In Mani Sundaram Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai), cash loans from relatives, later treated as gifts, didn’t incur penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act.
Explore the case of K.S. Chawla & Sons (HUF) Vs JCIT, where ITAT Delhi delves into penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with detailed analysis & conclusions.
Explore the case of DCIT Vs Platinum Towers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) regarding personal expenses treated as income, penalties under Section 269SS, and conclusions on the matter.
Explore the impact of Income Tax Sections 269SS, 269ST, 269SU, and 269T on transactions via Journal/Book Entries. Learn about legislative framework, judicial interpretations, and penalties.
Kalpana Sunil Vaid’s appeal against a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for loans taken from partnership firms is dismissed by ITAT Ahmedabad.
Sunil Dandriyal vs JCIT case underscores significance of understanding the correct starting point for calculating the time limit for penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The decision reinforces the principle that the initiation of penalty proceedings by the AO, rather than the issuance of a show-cause notice by the JCIT, triggers the commencement of the statutory time limit.
