Section 271D - Page 3

No penalty u/s 271D for advance received from promoters in cash through Current A/cs

M/s. Space N Place Promoters P. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITAT Chennai)

 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....

Read More

ITAT deletes penalty on Cash loan taken from unorganized finance sector to repay lenders

M/s. P.R. Associates Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune)

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. […]...

Read More

Levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E in case of non-genuineness of transactions between director and assessee-company

M/s. Vasan Healthcare P Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (Madras High Court)

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....

Read More

Cash Loan- Penalty justified on failure to establish Business exigency or urgency 

M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)

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 […]...

Read More

Penalty order u/s 271D & 271E would reckon from date when SCN was issued by AO

Income Tax Officer Vs Shri Prashant Sharma (ITAT Jaipur)

Penalty order u/s 271D and 271E would reckon from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the AO and not from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner who is competent to pass the penalty orders....

Read More

Capital contribution by partner in cash- No violation of section 269SS

ITO Vs Dayamayee Marble & Granite (ITAT kolkata)

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....

Read More

Penalty not leviable for cash loan taken/paid to comply re-settlement scheme of BIFR

Monarch Dyestuff Industries And Exports Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)

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....

Read More

Penalty order barred by limitation u/s 275(1)(c) is not valid

ITO Vs Shri Prashant Sharma (ITAT Jaipur)

Order of penalty passed under sections 271D and 271E was to set aside as the same was passed after expiry of six months from the action initiated for imposition of penalty and barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c)....

Read More

Penalty U/s. 271D for Contravention of section 269SS not leviable if assessee provides reasonable cause

Baldev Singh Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Chandigarh)

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....

Read More

HC upheld penalty for Cash Loan exceeding Rs. 20000 Taken & repaid

M. Sougoumarin Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Madras High Court)

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 2...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,923)
Company Law (6,535)
Custom Duty (7,943)
DGFT (4,309)
Excise Duty (4,389)
Fema / RBI (4,350)
Finance (4,602)
Income Tax (34,351)
SEBI (3,657)
Service Tax (3,586)

Search Posts by Date

September 2020