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...
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd., 345 ITR 270, held that settling claims by making journal entries in the respective books is also one of the recognized modes of repaying loan or deposit. In the absence of any finding recorded in the assessment order or in the penalty order to the effect that the repayment of loan or deposit was not a bona fide transaction and was made with a view to evade tax, the cause shown by the assessee was a reasonable cause and in view of section 273B of the Act, no penalty under section 271 E could be imposed for contravening the provisions of section 269T of the Act.
Mode of taking or accepting certain loans, deposits and specified sums and mode of repayment of loans or deposits and specified advances The earlier provisions contained in section 269SS of the Income-tax Act provide that no person shall take from any person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account […]
As per Section 269SS if specified sum (any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place) taken or accepted in cash is Rs. 20,000 or more , penalty equal to amount taken shall be imposed under S. 271D.
According to section 269SS of Income Tax Act, while transacting Immovable Property, 100% penalty will be levied if seller has accepted an amount of Rs. 20,000 or more in cash from the buyer. e.g. if for selling an immovable property ‘A’ has received an amount of Rs.1 lakh in cash from ‘B’ then ‘A’ has to pay 100% penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.
Measures to curb black money have been on the lips of every Finance Minister and Honorable Minister Shri Arun Jaitley is no exception. As we know, Real Estate business is the largest contributor of black money transactions. He trusts on the JAM (Jandhan, Aadhar, Mobile) generation to move away from such dark deals and build […]
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is leviable under section 271D when there has been repeated violations of section 269SS on the ground that the creditors are genuine persons and there was no revenue loss to the Exchequer
The authorities below as well as the Tribunal, on verification of the materials on record, came to a finding that the audit report and balance sheet of the assessee had shown the outstanding amount as loan received from 12 persons.
Section 269SS would not be violative when money is exchanged inter-se between the partners and partnership firm in spite of the fact that the partnership firm and individual partners are separate assessees.
The Assessing Authority having noticed that the assessee-company had accepted share application money in cash from its directors in violation of provisions of section 269SS, imposed penalty under section 271D and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalty order.
In the instant case, the AO did not dispute the genuineness of the transaction entered into between the assessee and Samajwadi Party and no addition had been made in this regard. Instead of cash, if the assessee had taken loan through cheque, it would have taken some time for process in clearing. Since the amount was deposited and withdrawn from bank on the same day for making cash payment to the Nazul Authority, there could be no reason to doubt the bona fide of the assessee.
