Income Tax : Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifica...
Income Tax : Income Tax Act amendments propose penalties by Assessing Officers instead of Joint Commissioners. Omission of section 271BB and ch...
Income Tax : Post-Finance Bill 2025, penalties under specified sections of the Income-tax Act will be levied by the Assessing Officer, with Joi...
Income Tax : Discover penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, including default conditions, quantum of penalties, and potent...
Income Tax : Understand key provisions on disallowance of cash expenses, limits on cash transactions, and penalties under Sections 269T, 269SS,...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur quashes 271D penalty against Balbir Singh, ruling funds received were advances, not loans, after verifying property ow...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai ruled that brokers facilitating land deals are not liable under Section 269SS as they act on behalf of clients and do...
Income Tax : In the recent ruling Hon'ble HC have observed that penalty proceedings, initiated u/s 271 D is barred by delay & laches as period ...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court quashes penalty proceedings under Section 271E of Income Tax Act citing lack of satisfaction recording in rea...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act not imposable for acceptance of cash on transfer of agri...
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...
Explore the case of K.S. Chawla & Sons (HUF) Vs JCIT, where ITAT Delhi delves into penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with detailed analysis & conclusions.
Explore the case of DCIT Vs Platinum Towers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) regarding personal expenses treated as income, penalties under Section 269SS, and conclusions on the matter.
Kalpana Sunil Vaid’s appeal against a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for loans taken from partnership firms is dismissed by ITAT Ahmedabad.
ITAT Delhi cancels penalty imposed under section 271E of the Income Tax Act on Pawan Kumar for loan repayment via bank transfer, challenging jurisdiction and citing legal grounds. Full text of the order included.
Sunil Dandriyal vs JCIT case underscores significance of understanding the correct starting point for calculating the time limit for penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The decision reinforces the principle that the initiation of penalty proceedings by the AO, rather than the issuance of a show-cause notice by the JCIT, triggers the commencement of the statutory time limit.
Read the full text of ITAT Mumbai’s order in Rohinton Homi Sanga Vs DCIT case. No income tax addition for an employee acting on behalf of company directors. Analysis and conclusion provided.
Learn about Section 269SS and penalties for cash transactions in property transfers. Case analysis, judicial pronouncement, and expert insights on reasonable cause.
Delhi High Court ruling on PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. emphasizes issuing notices under Section 274 before the Income Tax Act’s limitation period. Full judgment analysis.
Read the detailed analysis of Vijapurapu Sudha Rao vs ITO case by ITAT Visakhapatnam. No penalty under section 271D for cash sale if promptly deposited in the bank.
ITAT Chennai held that there is no violation of provisions of section 269SS when all sale deeds were registered and cash payment was made at one go before the sub-registrar at the time of registration of sale deeds of plots. Hence, penalty u/s 271D not leviable.
