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 provisions and penalties in the Income Tax Act 1961 regarding cash transactions. Understand limits for loans, deposits, and repayments to avoid penalties.
No person should accept any loan or deposit of a sum of Rs.20,000/- or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. Where a person advance cash more than Rs.20,000/- to another person, restriction on cash advances was, in fact, on the taker and not on the person who made an advance.
Madras High Court addresses penalty proceedings in Annamalai Bus Transports vs. PCIT for AY 2018-19. No cash transaction, emphasizes fair assessment.
ITAT quashes penalty order under section 271D as it was time-barred. Detailed analysis of Ram Kishan Verma Vs Additional CIT (ITAT Jaipur) case.
An in-depth analysis of the case Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) regarding violations of Section 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that the notice under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act should have been issued before the period of limitation as prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act on merely estimating that more income should have been earned from sub-contracting without bringing any comparable figures is unsustainable in law.
In an income tax penalty case, ITAT Chennai dismisses the appeal, upholding that advances received by Dr. M.N. Kumaresan constitute gifts and are exempt from penalty under section 271D.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that penalties under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed on loans transacted through banking channels. Details and analysis.
ITAT Hyderabad held that receipt of more than Rs. 20,000 by way of cash without any reasonable cause is in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty under section 271D duly imposed.
