Income Tax : Indian tax law restricts cash transactions to promote digital payments. Limits apply to expense payments (Sec 40A(3): ₹10k/day),...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : Understand relief mechanisms and defences under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for accepting cash loans or deposits over ₹20...
Income Tax : Supreme Court ruling on cash property deal cites wrong tax law (269ST instead of 269SS), but mandates reporting of large cash tra...
Income Tax : Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifica...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that mere observations about cash transactions are insufficient to levy penalty under Section 271D. A specific ...
Income Tax : The Telangana High Court set aside a penalty under Section 271D after finding that the assessment order contained no recorded sati...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata set aside the penalty order under Section 271D after the assessee claimed inadequate opportunity of hearing during pe...
Income Tax : The Court ruled that although the Joint Commissioner is the competent authority to levy penalty, initiation of proceedings still r...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner prefers ano...
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...
Under the Income-tax Act, penalties are levied for various defaults committed by the taxpayer. Some of the penalties are mandatory and a few are at the discretion of the tax authorities. In this part, you can gain knowledge about the provisions relating to various penalties leviable under the Income-tax Act.
Explore the detailed written submissions in the case of Sh. XXXXXX, challenging the penalty u/s 271D for accepting part cash in the sale of agriculture land. The appellant, an uneducated, rural individual, faced ill health and genuine reasons to accept cash. The penalty, imposed without fair hearing and ignoring reasonable causes, goes against judicial precedents. Discover the legal intricacies and practical challenges, emphasizing that penalty provisions should not be applied mechanically.
Explore the amendment to section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from 1.6.2015, regarding penalties under section 271D. Learn about reasonable causes, legal defenses, and key judgments, as this article provides insights for individuals dealing with cash transactions related to the sale of agricultural land post the mentioned amendment. Understand how the law impacts individuals, especially those with a rural background, and discover significant cases supporting the assessee’s position.
Akash Education & Development Trust Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, the assessee is a registered society u/s. 12AA of the Act and its income is exempt u/s. 11 of the Act. The assessee in the stage of establishment of educational institution has undertaken the construction activity of building for the purpose […]
Balwan Singh Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee is engaged as a transporter and has not maintained any regular books of account. The assessment has been made on estimations, keeping in mind the transportation receipts earned by the assessee which also includes some of impugned entries towards cash receipts by way of loan. The assessee […]
Acceptance and repayment of cash for personal purpose between near relatives did not not attract sections 269SS and 269T and, therefore, no penalty could be levied under section 271D/271E.
DCIT Vs Macrotech Developers Ltd. (successor to M/s. Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The ld. CIT(A) gave a categorical finding that the transactions carried out with the aforesaid three parties i.e. Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Limited & Lodha Developers Private Limited, which are subject matter of levy of penalty […]
Penalty under section 271D could not be levied on wife for receiving money from her husband for purchase of family property as practice of registering the property in name of the wife was guided by various family and societal factors besides encouragement of the Government for such transactions entered into by female members in the family by way of reduced stamp duty and she had offered reasonable explanation justifying the cash transactions
Penalty proceedings under section 271D or 271E were independent proceedings and had nothing to do with assessment proceedings or its outcome. Therefore, CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the orders imposing penalty on the ground that the assessment proceedings, during the course of which, penalty u/s.271D and 271E were initiated had been held to be invalid.
Mohan Lal Vs JCIT (ITAT Jaipur) Magistrate had convicted the assessee on the complaint filed U/s 138 of the N.I. Act by Shri Aditya Kumar Sharma but that does not ipso facto mean that assessee has taken or accepted any loan or deposit or any specified sum in cash from the said Aditya Kumar Sharma. […]
