Income Tax : Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifica...
Income Tax : Income Tax Act amendments propose penalties by Assessing Officers instead of Joint Commissioners. Omission of section 271BB and ch...
Income Tax : Post-Finance Bill 2025, penalties under specified sections of the Income-tax Act will be levied by the Assessing Officer, with Joi...
Income Tax : Discover penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, including default conditions, quantum of penalties, and potent...
Income Tax : Understand key provisions on disallowance of cash expenses, limits on cash transactions, and penalties under Sections 269T, 269SS,...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashes penalty under Section 271D as Section 153C assessment was declared void for lack of incriminating material, cit...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur quashes 271D penalty against Balbir Singh, ruling funds received were advances, not loans, after verifying property ow...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai ruled that brokers facilitating land deals are not liable under Section 269SS as they act on behalf of clients and do...
Income Tax : In the recent ruling Hon'ble HC have observed that penalty proceedings, initiated u/s 271 D is barred by delay & laches as period ...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court quashes penalty proceedings under Section 271E of Income Tax Act citing lack of satisfaction recording in rea...
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...
The ld. counsel vehemently stated that the legislative intent in prohibiting the acceptance and repayment of money in cash over and above Rs. 20,000/- is to check the unaccounted money and not to hit the genuine business need.
Where assessee received capital from the partner in cash, it did not tentamount to loan or deposit and therefore, penalty under section 271D was not to be levied for violation of section 269SS.
The Government of India with an intention to evade black money and to discourage the cash transactions time and again taking various steps. Specially the Income tax Act is amended and provided with disallowances and stringent penal provisions for various types of cash transactions. Let us briefly understand some of such provisions here.
The Revenue is in appeal against the common order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The issue relates to acceptance of loans and deposits other than by way of Cheque or Draft, in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity the Act] and the resultant penalty levied under Section 271D, totaling the amounts so accepted.
Sri Jagmohan Sharma Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The transactions between these family members are neither loans nor deposit and purely a family system and purely a family requirement to help each other in the needy hours, for example medical help, education help and expenses to run the family. That is, one member of the family […]
To support the family members, the money has been given by the assessee to his son/wife. This is simply a transfer of money from one family member to another family member to support day to day expenses, educational expenses and other family expenses
CIT Vs. Apex Finlease Ltd. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court) Section 269SS does not include in its ambit where there is a transaction of loan or deposit by way of entries in the books of account by crediting or debiting the account of the other person. In other words, the provisions of section 269SS of […]
The Income Tax Officer Vs Mrs. Lakshmi Vishwanath (ITAT Delhi) Briefly the facts of the case are that the A.O. in the assessment order noted that assessee was asked to explain source of the cash deposit in her bank account maintained with State Bank of India. The assessee attended the proceedings before A.O. and filed […]
Penalty order u/s 271D and 271E would reckon from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the AO and not from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner who is competent to pass the penalty orders.
Order of penalty passed under sections 271D and 271E was to set aside as the same was passed after expiry of six months from the action initiated for imposition of penalty and barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c).
