Income Tax : Indian tax law restricts cash transactions to promote digital payments. Limits apply to expense payments (Sec 40A(3): ₹10k/day),...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : Understand relief mechanisms and defences under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for accepting cash loans or deposits over ₹20...
Income Tax : Supreme Court ruling on cash property deal cites wrong tax law (269ST instead of 269SS), but mandates reporting of large cash tra...
Income Tax : Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifica...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that mere observations about cash transactions are insufficient to levy penalty under Section 271D. A specific ...
Income Tax : The Telangana High Court set aside a penalty under Section 271D after finding that the assessment order contained no recorded sati...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata set aside the penalty order under Section 271D after the assessee claimed inadequate opportunity of hearing during pe...
Income Tax : The Court ruled that although the Joint Commissioner is the competent authority to levy penalty, initiation of proceedings still r...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner prefers ano...
Income Tax : It is a settled position that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by th...
Income Tax : It has been brought to notice of CBDT that there are conflicting interpretations of various High Courts on the issue whether the l...
Karnataka High Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer since non-response to notice issued under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act by the petitioner was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act not leviable in terms of section 273B of the Income Tax Act since claim of exemption u/s. 54 is made in an open and bonafide manner.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act untenable since AO didn’t record any satisfaction to the effect that provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act are violated.
Madras High Court held that the Assessment Officer has not recorded the reasons for arriving at a subjective satisfaction to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271E of the Act, which is mandatory. Thus, order set aside.
Bombay HC upholds ITAT ruling on non-imposition of penalty under Section 271D for journal entries, citing reasonable cause under Section 273B. Appeals dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty u/s. 269D and 269E of the Income Tax Act without clear finding along with authentic evidence that provisions of section 269SS and 269T are violated is unsustainable.
ITAT Cochin held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act in consolidated manner is unjustified as AO has to point out each entry where such acceptance or repayment is Rs. 20,000/- or more.
ITAT Bangalore held that imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act unwarranted as reasonable cause shown for accepting the cash on account of sale of immovable property.
ITAT Bangalore held penalty initiation under Sections 271D/271E must be noted in assessment order; temporary family loans without interest are not penalized as deposits.
Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Chennai’s decision on penalties under sections 269SS and 269T for Pearl Beach Promoters P. Ltd. in the case of cash loans from directors.
