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...
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.
Explore the case of DCIT Vs Platinum Towers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) regarding personal expenses treated as income, penalties under Section 269SS, and conclusions on the matter.
Kalpana Sunil Vaid’s appeal against a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for loans taken from partnership firms is dismissed by ITAT Ahmedabad.
