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...
No person should accept any loan or deposit of a sum of Rs.20,000/- or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. Where a person advance cash more than Rs.20,000/- to another person, restriction on cash advances was, in fact, on the taker and not on the person who made an advance.
Madras High Court addresses penalty proceedings in Annamalai Bus Transports vs. PCIT for AY 2018-19. No cash transaction, emphasizes fair assessment.
ITAT quashes penalty order under section 271D as it was time-barred. Detailed analysis of Ram Kishan Verma Vs Additional CIT (ITAT Jaipur) case.
An in-depth analysis of the case Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) regarding violations of Section 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that the notice under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act should have been issued before the period of limitation as prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act on merely estimating that more income should have been earned from sub-contracting without bringing any comparable figures is unsustainable in law.
In an income tax penalty case, ITAT Chennai dismisses the appeal, upholding that advances received by Dr. M.N. Kumaresan constitute gifts and are exempt from penalty under section 271D.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that penalties under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed on loans transacted through banking channels. Details and analysis.
ITAT Hyderabad held that receipt of more than Rs. 20,000 by way of cash without any reasonable cause is in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty under section 271D duly imposed.
In Gopinath Kanduri vs. ITO case, penalty under section 271D was imposed for a technical violation of section 269SS. Learn how tribunal ruled in favor of assessee.
