Income Tax : This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences ...
Income Tax : This FAQ serves as a reference for the Income-tax Act provisions relating to cash receipts, loans, repayments, and electronic paym...
Income Tax : The article explains how offences such as wilful tax evasion, failure to file returns, non-payment of TDS/TCS, falsification of re...
Income Tax : This article outlines major offences under the Income-tax Act that may result in prosecution, including tax evasion, non-payment o...
Income Tax : This article explains the statutory powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to waive or reduce penalties in genuine c...
Income Tax : ITAT held the Section 271D penalty was time-barred under Section 275(1)(c) as it was imposed after the prescribed limitation perio...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D is invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment o...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of the Section 271D penalty, holding that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment or...
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...
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.
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.
