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...
Assessee’s contention was that the entries were not in the nature of the loan or deposit on the face of it was not acceptable, as once any amount had been received by the assessee and the same was shown as received in its books of account, then it had partaken the nature of deposit and penal provision of section 271D was attracted.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Tehal Singh Khara & Sons that Penalty under section 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 not justified for Contravention of section 269SS if assessee had given reasonable cause for entering into the cash transactions, as creditors from whom the cash was received […]
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on the basis of the provisional accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant but did not file the audited accounts. The AO, therefore, issued a notice u/s 271D for levy of penalty for non filing of the audit report. The assessee explained […]
Penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under Sections 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it.
It is a settled position that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the limitation period for the imposition of penalty under these provisions would be the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.
It has been brought to notice of CBDT that there are conflicting interpretations of various High Courts on the issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Income tax Act, 1961commences at the level of the Assessing Officer (below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.) or at level of the Range authority i.e. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax./Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Global Realty Heritage Venture (Cochin) (P.) Ltd., vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) In the absence of any such evidence the plea of bonafide belief in the peculiar circumstances cannot be discarded. It is seen that the assessee has consistently canvassed that there was a bonafide belief that the amount taken
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision held that the penalty proceeding under Sec 271D and 271E can be initiated by Joint commissioner only and the limitation period of six months to be reckoned from the end of month of initiation of penalty proceedings by Joint
In a landmark judgement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT- V. Smt. Dimpal Yadav, it was held that where even through assesee had taken a loan in cash, since loan was routed through bank account of the assessee for the payment to Government for converting land into free
ITAT held in Envogue Wood Working Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT that if the assessee had taken and repaid the loan in cash and provided the sufficient reasonable cause of doing such then penalty u/s 271D & 271E would not be imposed.
