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 : ITAT Pune held that delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) condoned due to company’s financial position and non-pursuing of ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore rules in favor of assessee, cancels penalty under Section 271D for cash loans taken from close relatives, citing re...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore cancels ₹2.20 lakh penalty on Rajiv Duseja for cash loans from family. Cites precedents on genuine transactions &...
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 : 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.
