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 : 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 : ITAT Pune held that delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) condoned due to company’s financial position and non-pursuing of ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore rules in favor of assessee, cancels penalty under Section 271D for cash loans taken from close relatives, citing re...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore cancels ₹2.20 lakh penalty on Rajiv Duseja for cash loans from family. Cites precedents on genuine transactions &...
Income Tax : The plaintiff entity is a company engaged in the business of constructing and redeveloping immovable properties, either on a contr...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata removes ₹1 crore penalty under Sec 271E, ruling cash transaction between sister concerns as reimbursement, not loan...
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...
Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifications on Section 271AAB.
ITAT Jaipur quashes 271D penalty against Balbir Singh, ruling funds received were advances, not loans, after verifying property ownership.
ITAT Chennai ruled that brokers facilitating land deals are not liable under Section 269SS as they act on behalf of clients and do not receive payments in their own right.
In the recent ruling Hon’ble HC have observed that penalty proceedings, initiated u/s 271 D is barred by delay & laches as period of limitation starts from the reference made by ITO to Addl. CIT.
Rajasthan High Court quashes penalty proceedings under Section 271E of Income Tax Act citing lack of satisfaction recording in reassessment orders.
Income Tax Act amendments propose penalties by Assessing Officers instead of Joint Commissioners. Omission of section 271BB and changes to section 246A included.
Post-Finance Bill 2025, penalties under specified sections of the Income-tax Act will be levied by the Assessing Officer, with Joint Commissioner approval for higher amounts.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act not imposable for acceptance of cash on transfer of agricultural land as non-compliance with section 269SS of the Income Tax Act was due to bonafide belief.
ITAT Kolkata held the penalty under section 271E of the Income Tax Act not leviable since in the present case there was no repayment of loan received from the members but it was loan disbursed to members. Accordingly, revenue appeal dismissed.
Karnataka High Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer since non-response to notice issued under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act by the petitioner was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.
