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...
Read the full text of the ITAT Bangalore order in Laxmilal Badolla Vs NFAC. Penalty under Sec 271D cancelled due to reasonable cause, detailed analysis and conclusion included.
Penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed if assessment proceedings are quashed. Detailed analysis of Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) and its implications.
Section 54F amendment restricting exemption to one residential house was prospective, applying only from April 1, 2015 and Violation of section 269SS of the IT Act, if any, would call for a separate penalty under section 271D, not an addition under section 68.
Calcutta High Court held that share application money or its repayment does not fall under Section 269SS & 269T, as the same are not loans or deposits, and do not attract penalties under Sections 271D and 271E of Income Tax Act.
Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. ACIT case: ITAT Kolkata directs re-evaluation as AO misinterpreted PCIT’s orders on loan payments.
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.
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.
