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 : 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 : The plaintiff entity is a company engaged in the business of constructing and redeveloping immovable properties, either on a contr...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata removes ₹1 crore penalty under Sec 271E, ruling cash transaction between sister concerns as reimbursement, not loan...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded u/s.153C for each assessment year, thus, recording of consolidate...
Income Tax : ITAT Amritsar held that there is no violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act when cash payment was made at o...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashes penalty under Section 271D as Section 153C assessment was declared void for lack of incriminating material, cit...
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...
Section 54F amendment restricting exemption to one residential house was prospective, applying only from April 1, 2015 and Violation of section 269SS of the IT Act, if any, would call for a separate penalty under section 271D, not an addition under section 68.
Calcutta High Court held that share application money or its repayment does not fall under Section 269SS & 269T, as the same are not loans or deposits, and do not attract penalties under Sections 271D and 271E of Income Tax Act.
Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. ACIT case: ITAT Kolkata directs re-evaluation as AO misinterpreted PCIT’s orders on loan payments.
Section 271D penalty proceeding cannot be initiated if AO fail to record his satisfaction before initiating penalty penalty proceeding in respect of violation of provisions of section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the case of SVT Wholesale Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT, the ITAT Bangalore evaluates the penalty imposed under Section 271D for violating Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn about the legal arguments, precedents, and the tribunal’s decision.
Chennai ITAT ruled that receiving a huge sale consideration in cash violates Sec 269SS, warranting penalty under Sec 271D. Case analysis of Nammalvar Lingusamy Vs ACIT.
In Mani Sundaram Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai), cash loans from relatives, later treated as gifts, didn’t incur penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act.
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.
