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 : 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 : ITAT Pune held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded u/s.153C for each assessment year, thus, recording of consolidate...
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...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashes penalty under Section 271D as Section 153C assessment was declared void for lack of incriminating material, cit...
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...
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.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act not leviable in terms of section 273B of the Income Tax Act since claim of exemption u/s. 54 is made in an open and bonafide manner.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act untenable since AO didn’t record any satisfaction to the effect that provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act are violated.
Madras High Court held that the Assessment Officer has not recorded the reasons for arriving at a subjective satisfaction to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271E of the Act, which is mandatory. Thus, order set aside.
