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 : 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 : This report provides a consolidated overview of the critical monetary threshold limits stipulated under various sections of the In...
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 examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating ...
Income Tax : ITAT held that cash loans taken for son’s education were bona fide and supported by evidence. Reasonable cause under Section 273...
Income Tax : The ITAT Kolkata held that cash introduced by partners as capital contribution in an LLP does not attract Section 269SS and theref...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that cash received at the time of executing a registered sale deed does not fall within the definition of “spe...
Income Tax : The ITAT ruled that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment order bars initiation of penalty under Section 271E. Superv...
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 : G.S.R. 841(E).—In the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Dire...
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,...
Measures to curb black money have been on the lips of every Finance Minister and Honorable Minister Shri Arun Jaitley is no exception. As we know, Real Estate business is the largest contributor of black money transactions. He trusts on the JAM (Jandhan, Aadhar, Mobile) generation to move away from such dark deals and build […]
In absence of any finding recorded in the assessment order or in the penalty order to the effect that repayment of loans/ deposit was not under a bonafide transaction and was made with a view to evade tax, the cause shown by the assessee was a reasonable cause and in the view of section 273B no penalty could be imposed.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is leviable under section 271D when there has been repeated violations of section 269SS on the ground that the creditors are genuine persons and there was no revenue loss to the Exchequer
Section 269SS would not be violative when money is exchanged inter-se between the partners and partnership firm in spite of the fact that the partnership firm and individual partners are separate assessees.
The Assessing Authority having noticed that the assessee-company had accepted share application money in cash from its directors in violation of provisions of section 269SS, imposed penalty under section 271D and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalty order.
In the instant case, the AO did not dispute the genuineness of the transaction entered into between the assessee and Samajwadi Party and no addition had been made in this regard. Instead of cash, if the assessee had taken loan through cheque, it would have taken some time for process in clearing. Since the amount was deposited and withdrawn from bank on the same day for making cash payment to the Nazul Authority, there could be no reason to doubt the bona fide of the assessee.
DCIT Vs Rupen Das (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee was engaged in providing security guards to various Government and non-Government organisations and regular payment to the employees was essential to provide better services.
Where in case of assessee there was only processing of return under section 143(1)(a) and, there was no finding in order of AO with regard to applicability of section 269T to assessee’s case, no penalty under section 271E was permissible.
In the present case, the alleged amount of Rs. 8.55 lakhs was received by the assessee in cash on account of share application money, penalty under s. 271D cannot be levied because the receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit and hence the impugned receipt of Rs. 8.55 lakhs is not governed by s. 269SS of the Act. We therefore, delete the penalty.
There is no dispute about the fact, that the instant cash transactions of the respondent-assessee were with the sister concern, and that, these transactions were between the family, and due to business exigency. A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof is contained in the compilation of accounts, and which has no tax effect
