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 : This article outlines major penalties under the Income-tax Act for defaults involving tax payments, return filing, TDS compliance,...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court quashed the reinitiated penalty proceedings after the Assessing Officer failed to pass a fresh order within...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that recording satisfaction in the assessment order is mandatory before initiating penalty under Section 271D. ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to record sa...
Income Tax : The Kerala High Court held that factual disputes relating to a penalty under Section 271D must first be examined through the statu...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an untested third-party statement, without supporting evidence or cross-examination, cannot form the sole basis...
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...
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.
The assessee in the present case has also raised the plea of reasonable cause, that the person advancing the loan was agriculturist and had no bank account. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied under sections 271D and 271E of the Act.
DCIT Vs Rupen Das (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee was engaged in providing security guards to various Government and non-Government organisations and regular payment to the employees was essential to provide better services.
Income Tax Appeal – Share Application Money Dispute | Abhisek Saraf’s Cash Contribution | ITAT Kolkata Decision | Penalty under s. 271D
The Assessing officer initiated proceedings for alleged violation of section 269SS of the Act in as much as the assessee accepted share application money being Rs.20,000/- in cash. Thereafter, penalty was imposed. On appeal, CIT(A) upheld the stand of the assessee that the amount received
In the present case, the alleged amount of Rs. 8.55 lakhs was received by the assessee in cash on account of share application money, penalty under s. 271D cannot be levied because the receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit and hence the impugned receipt of Rs. 8.55 lakhs is not governed by s. 269SS of the Act. We therefore, delete the penalty.
There is no dispute about the fact, that the instant cash transactions of the respondent-assessee were with the sister concern, and that, these transactions were between the family, and due to business exigency. A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof is contained in the compilation of accounts, and which has no tax effect
