Follow Us:

Section 271D

Latest Articles


Penalties and Prosecutions Under Income tax Act, 1961

Income Tax : This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences ...

July 6, 2026 532644 Views 4 comments Print

FAQs on Disallowance of cash expenses or limit on cash transactions

Income Tax : This FAQ serves as a reference for the Income-tax Act provisions relating to cash receipts, loans, repayments, and electronic paym...

June 22, 2026 5553 Views 0 comment Print

Prosecutions and Punishment under Income Tax Act, 1961

Income Tax : The article explains how offences such as wilful tax evasion, failure to file returns, non-payment of TDS/TCS, falsification of re...

June 17, 2026 51618 Views 7 comments Print

Income Tax Offences liable to prosecution

Income Tax : This article outlines major offences under the Income-tax Act that may result in prosecution, including tax evasion, non-payment o...

June 15, 2026 59309 Views 4 comments Print

Power of Commissioner to Reduce or Waive Income Tax Penalty

Income Tax : This article explains the statutory powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to waive or reduce penalties in genuine c...

June 15, 2026 65518 Views 3 comments Print


Latest Judiciary


ITAT Jaipur Quashes Section 271D Penalty as It Was Barred by Limitation

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...

July 3, 2026 75 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Quashes Section 271D Penalty as AO Failed to Record Satisfaction

Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...

July 3, 2026 78 Views 0 comment Print

Section 271D Penalty Deleted Due to Absence of Satisfaction in Assessment Order

Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D is invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment o...

July 3, 2026 87 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Deletes Section 271D Penalty as AO Failed to Record Satisfaction

Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...

July 3, 2026 99 Views 0 comment Print

Section 271D Penalty Cannot Survive Without Recorded Satisfaction: Gujarat HC

Income Tax : Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of the Section 271D penalty, holding that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment or...

July 2, 2026 273 Views 0 comment Print


Latest Notifications


Limitation for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D & 271E

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...

April 26, 2016 7882 Views 0 comment Print

Limitation commencement for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D &271E

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...

April 26, 2016 3097 Views 0 comment Print


Where reasonable explanation is furnished, levy of penalty u/s 271D is not justified

July 26, 2007 2325 Views 0 comment Print

In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that money was loaned or kept deposited for a fixed period or repayable on demand. Further, the sister concerns and the assessee were owned by the same family group of people with a common managing partner with centralised accounts under the same roof

Sections 269SS have no application in respect of Share Application Money Received in cash

July 12, 2007 1005 Views 0 comment Print

Q.1. What is the definition of MSME? A.1. The Government of India has enacted the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 in terms of which the definition of micro, small and medium enterprises is as under:(a) Enterprises engaged in the manufacture or production, processing or preservation of goods as specified below: (i) A micro enterprise is an enterprise where investment in plant and machinery does not exceed Rs. 25 lakh;

Amount paid by firm to partners or vice versa is not a loan

January 23, 2007 1230 Views 0 comment Print

Under the general provision relating to Partnership Act that partnership firm is not a juristic person and for inter relationship different remedies are provided to enforce the rights arising out of their inter se transactions, the issue about separate entities apart, it cannot be doubted that the assessee has acted bona fide and his plea that inter se transactions

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031