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...
: 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. […]
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 […]
