Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Section 271D

Latest Articles


Relief from Income Tax Penalty Section 271D: Grounds & Judicial Perspectives

Income Tax : Understand relief mechanisms and defences under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for accepting cash loans or deposits over ₹20...

April 17, 2025 1428 Views 0 comment Print

Landmark SC Ruling on Property Transaction in Cash: Did It Quote Wrong Section?

Income Tax : Supreme Court ruling on cash property deal cites wrong tax law (269ST instead of 269SS), but mandates reporting of large cash tra...

April 17, 2025 3492 Views 2 comments Print

Rationalization of Time limits to Impose Income Tax Penalties

Income Tax : Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifica...

March 5, 2025 810 Views 0 comment Print

Proposed Amendments to Penalty Provisions in Income Tax Act

Income Tax : Income Tax Act amendments propose penalties by Assessing Officers instead of Joint Commissioners. Omission of section 271BB and ch...

February 3, 2025 1023 Views 0 comment Print

Budget 2025: AO to Impose Sections 271C to 271E Penalty Instead of JCIT

Income Tax : Post-Finance Bill 2025, penalties under specified sections of the Income-tax Act will be levied by the Assessing Officer, with Joi...

February 2, 2025 456 Views 0 comment Print


Latest Judiciary


Violation of section 269ST doesn’t render agreement unenforceable in Civil Court

Income Tax : The plaintiff entity is a company engaged in the business of constructing and redeveloping immovable properties, either on a contr...

April 15, 2025 306 Views 0 comment Print

Cash transaction between sister concerns: ITAT Kolkata Deletes Section 271E Penalty

Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata removes ₹1 crore penalty under Sec 271E, ruling cash transaction between sister concerns as reimbursement, not loan...

April 12, 2025 564 Views 0 comment Print

Recording of consolidated satisfaction note u/s. 153C for different assessment years is bad-in-law

Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded u/s.153C for each assessment year, thus, recording of consolidate...

April 5, 2025 243 Views 0 comment Print

Penalty u/s. 271D deleted as cash payment made at one go before sub-registrar: ITAT Amritsar

Income Tax : ITAT Amritsar held that there is no violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act when cash payment was made at o...

March 10, 2025 11844 Views 0 comment Print

Section 271D Penalty Proceedings Void if Quantum Assessment Quashed

Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashes penalty under Section 271D as Section 153C assessment was declared void for lack of incriminating material, cit...

March 9, 2025 393 Views 0 comment Print


Latest Notifications


Limitation for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D & 271E

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...

April 26, 2016 7405 Views 0 comment Print

Limitation commencement for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D &271E

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...

April 26, 2016 2833 Views 0 comment Print


Sec. 269SS Contribution towards share application money received in cash is not loan or deposit

May 28, 2010 585 Views 0 comment Print

Income Tax Appeal – Share Application Money Dispute | Abhisek Saraf’s Cash Contribution | ITAT Kolkata Decision | Penalty under s. 271D

No Penalty U/s. 271D for receipt of Share application money in cash

October 22, 2009 1237 Views 0 comment Print

The Assessing officer initiated proceedings for alleged violation of section 269SS of the Act in as much as the assessee accepted share application money being Rs.20,000/- in cash. Thereafter, penalty was imposed. On appeal, CIT(A) upheld the stand of the assessee that the amount received

Receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit

May 6, 2009 789 Views 0 comment Print

In the present case, the alleged amount of Rs. 8.55 lakhs was received by the assessee in cash on account of share application money, penalty under s. 271D cannot be levied because the receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit and hence the impugned receipt of Rs. 8.55 lakhs is not governed by s. 269SS of the Act. We therefore, delete the penalty.

No Penalty for cash loan to Sister Concerns due to business exigency

March 3, 2009 2552 Views 0 comment Print

There is no dispute about the fact, that the instant cash transactions of the respondent-assessee were with the sister concern, and that, these transactions were between the family, and due to business exigency. A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof is contained in the compilation of accounts, and which has no tax effect

Where reasonable explanation is furnished, levy of penalty u/s 271D is not justified

July 26, 2007 2001 Views 0 comment Print

In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that money was loaned or kept deposited for a fixed period or repayable on demand. Further, the sister concerns and the assessee were owned by the same family group of people with a common managing partner with centralised accounts under the same roof

Sections 269SS have no application in respect of Share Application Money Received in cash

July 12, 2007 876 Views 0 comment Print

Q.1. What is the definition of MSME? A.1. The Government of India has enacted the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 in terms of which the definition of micro, small and medium enterprises is as under:(a) Enterprises engaged in the manufacture or production, processing or preservation of goods as specified below: (i) A micro enterprise is an enterprise where investment in plant and machinery does not exceed Rs. 25 lakh;

Amount paid by firm to partners or vice versa is not a loan

January 23, 2007 1020 Views 0 comment Print

Under the general provision relating to Partnership Act that partnership firm is not a juristic person and for inter relationship different remedies are provided to enforce the rights arising out of their inter se transactions, the issue about separate entities apart, it cannot be doubted that the assessee has acted bona fide and his plea that inter se transactions

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
April 2025
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930