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...
ITAT Bangalore held that provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied when explanation given by the assesse constitutes a reasonable cause. Accordingly, concluded that bonafide business transaction cannot be considered for levying the penalty u/s 271D of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that share application money received in cash for allotment of shares would not amount either to a loan or deposit within the meaning of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271D not leviable.
ITAT Delhi held that in absence of any reasonable cause for taking cash loan (i.e. contravening provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act), penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act duly leviable.
ITAT Chennai held that amount of Rs. 14 Lakhs received in cash for sale of immovable property is against the provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly penalty under section 271D imposable.
ITAT Indore held that penalty under section 271D and section 271E are not attracted in case of loan given. Accordingly, penalty proceeding imposing penalty u/s 271D/ 271E of the Income Tax Act in case of loan given is invalid.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act is leviable on loan taken by way of cash. Notably, repayment of cash loan by way of cheque wouldn’t exonerate the assessee from levy of penalty.
H.K. Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Allahabad) there was no valid and reasonable cause for assesse to have received loan or deposit of Rs. 1,10,02,000/- in cash from its Director namely Mr. Hemant Kumar Sindhi, more so Allahabad(Now Prayagraj), U.P. is having all the requisite banking facilities available, and there was no reason and […]
It is evident that the assessee had received cash amounts, but deposited in its Bank A/c which is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 269SS. But like any other penalty, the operation of Section 271D with reference to the violation of the provisions contained in Section 269SS also is not automatic.
Hitesh Manshukhbahi Dave Vs JCIT (ITAT Rajkot) Gujarat High Court in the case of Dr. Rajaram L. Akhaniv ITO [2017] 88 taxmann.com 693 (Gujarat) has held that where assessee had accepted a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from his son to meet urgent requirement of depositing margin money in bank account for buying a vehicle […]
Once, it is established that these payments are for construction contract and particularly the AO has made disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 269SS of the Act for levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act.
