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...
Understand the penalty for contravening provisions of section 269SS. Learn about the applicability, authority, and amount of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act.
The issue under consideration is whether the issue of penalty notice u/s 271D is justified under the Act? Penalty u/s 271D shall not be levied in the case of near relatives
Assessee could not establish any ‘reasonable cause’ with respect of acceptance of the deposits in cash, exceeding the permissible limit, imposition of the penalty was re-affirmed.
SOME INTERESTING ASPECTS OF PENALTY U/S 271D r.w.s 269SS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 Penalty under section 271D the Income-tax Act, 1961 is imposed upon contraventions of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. In this article, an attempt has been made to touch upon certain aspects not usually discussed but at the same time […]
Shri Sanmathi Ambanna Vs JCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In penalty proceedings, the assessee, inter alia, submitted that the transactions in question cannot be strictly construed as loan but rather are in the nature of gifts from his father-in-law Shri. G. P. Padmakumar because of the fact that the person giving the money and the person accepting […]
In the instant case, has received cash loan from her parents and brother to meet the stamp duty cost for purchase of a house property for her own living, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act and the provisions of section 273B will come to the rescue of the assessee as a reasonable cause.
: Where there existed reasonable cause for the assessee in accepting the loans in cash and particularly as the loans were repaid by way of RTGS, i.e., via banking channels, penalty levied by AO under section 271D was deleted.
Where the loans were taken by assessee in cash from his relatives, the transactions between relatives were not in the nature of loans or deposits as envisaged in section 269SS and the penalty imposed under section 271D was accordingly cancelled.
Since assessee had given reasonable cause for availing loan in cash from his father within the meaning of section 271D, therefore, he would be out of the rigours of levy of penalty under section 271D and no penalty could be levied.
M/s. P.R. Associates Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) We find that the assessee specifically submitted before the AO during the course of penalty proceedings, which fact has also been captured in the penalty order, that its business was inoperative for the last 7 years and it had already borrowed loans from Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. […]
