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...
Penalty u/s 271D and 271 E was leviable as there was absolutely no genuinity or bonafideness in the transaction done between the promoter/ director and assessee- company.
M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) High Court held that there was no such reason for regular loan transactions of borrowing and repayment in cash of amounts exceeding Rs.20,000/- so as to escape penal liability under Sections 271E and 271D of the IT Act. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT These […]
Penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed on assessee for advances against sale of flats and cash receipts received from the promoters through their respective current accounts as nothing had been brought on record by Revenue to show that the receipts were superfluous in nature and not for the business of assessee.
Assessee was not liable for penalty under section 271D and 271E for availing cash loans/deposits in violation of section 269SS and 269T as it had availed the facility in order to re-establish itself, and for fulfilment of promises given for the purpose of BIFR which was a reasonable cause foe not levying penalty.
These appeals are against an order dated 31-3-2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Chennai, allowing the appeals, being I.T.A.Nos.262 and 263/Mds/2015, in relation to the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2012-2013 filed by the respondent Revenue and restoring the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Sections 271E and 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act).
Deepak Sales & Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) There is no dispute between the parties that bonafide nature of transactions alone would not be sufficient to escape the clutches of sec. 271D of the Act. As per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kum. A.B. Shanthi (supra), it […]
Shri Tej Narayan Agarwal Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Amount received and repaid by the assessee subsequently is not a loan. This is a transaction done on behalf of his children to accommodate tham in obtaining DD’s without charges and cannot be considered as taking of loan or repayment of loan in cash. Facts of […]
Since in the present case also the assessee had taken the loan from his wife for the purchase of house which is for the benefit of the whole family, therefore, following the decision cited [supra], we hold that penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act in the instant case is not justified.
The ld. counsel vehemently stated that the legislative intent in prohibiting the acceptance and repayment of money in cash over and above Rs. 20,000/- is to check the unaccounted money and not to hit the genuine business need.
Where assessee received capital from the partner in cash, it did not tentamount to loan or deposit and therefore, penalty under section 271D was not to be levied for violation of section 269SS.
