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/...
Corporate Law : High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that contradictory defence evidence failed to rebut statutory presu...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashed a ₹65 lakh penalty under Section 271D after finding that no assessment was made for the relevant year and no ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT exceeded jurisdiction by introducing issues not mentioned in the Section 263 show-cause notice. The ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted penalties imposed for alleged cash transactions after holding that the electronic evidence relied upon by the R...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiati...
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 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.
The case addressed addition of a large gift treated as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal remanded the matter after admitting additional evidence showing the donor’s identity, relationship, and financial capacity.
The Tribunal examined suspicion surrounding a large cash advance for property. It ruled that suspicion alone cannot replace evidence, and once the transaction is substantiated, section 68 addition must be deleted.
The ITAT ruled that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment order bars initiation of penalty under Section 271E. Supervisory revision cannot substitute the Assessing Officer’s statutory discretion.
ITAT held that penalties under sections 271D and 271E cannot survive once the underlying additions are deleted. The ruling confirms that penalties collapse with the quantum.
