Section 271D - Page 5

Penalty not invokable if barred by limitation or there is absence of mala fide intention

Smt. Parin K. Rajwani Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The ld. Counsel for the assessee for the year AY 2007-08 regarding the imposition of penalty contended that the Assessee were not aware of the provisions of Law in which the receipt of loan through cheque or bank draft was required. ...

Read More

Loans or Deposits under Sec 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961

No person shall accept any loan or deposit in a single day from another person in any form other than account payee cheque or bank draft, if aggregate amount involved is more than Rs 20,000. This provision has come into force to counteract the evasion of tax by mode of acceptance of money in certain cases. The objective is to prevent tran...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Loans advanced by partner to firm does not fall in the purview of Sec 269SS

M/s Muthoot Financiers group firms Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)

The respondent assessee in all these appeals are partnership firms engaged in the business of banking and registered under the Kerala Money Lending Act. The assessees had filed return of income and the same was accepted in due course....

Read More

Penalty u/s 271D & 271E cannot be levied on transaction entered through journal voucher

Goldstar Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd., 345 ITR 270, held that settling claims by making journal entries in the respective books is also one of the recognized modes of repaying loan or deposit. In the absence of any finding recorded in the assessment order or in the penalty order to the effect th...

Read More

Advance in cash for Property Covered by Section 269SS & 269T wef 01.06.2015

Mode of taking or accepting certain loans, deposits and specified sums and mode of repayment of loans or deposits and specified advances The earlier provisions contained in section 269SS of the Income-tax Act provide that no person shall take from any person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account [&hellip...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

Changes In Direct Tax Provisions Effective from 01-06-2015 along with PPT

As per Section 269SS if specified sum (any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place) taken or accepted in cash is Rs. 20,000 or more , penalty equal to amount taken shall be imposed under S. 271D....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Harsh Penalty for Property Transaction in Cash of Rs. 20,000 or more w.e.f. 1st June, 2015

According to section 269SS of Income Tax Act, while transacting Immovable Property, 100% penalty will be levied if seller has accepted an amount of Rs. 20,000 or more in cash from the buyer. e.g. if for selling an immovable property 'A' has received an amount of Rs.1 lakh in cash from 'B' then 'A' has to pay 100% penalty of Rs. 1 lakh....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Practical Issues in Penalty U/s. 271D and 271E r.w. Section 269SS and 269T

Provisions Of 269SS, 269T, 271D AND 271E As Per Finance Bill 2014 And Finance Bill 2015 And Some Issues Regarding Penalty U/S 271D, 271E And Relating To Amendments. Consequences of contravention of section 269SS: Section 271D of Income Tax Act 1961 provides that if a loan or deposit is accepted in contravention of the provisions of sectio...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

‘JAM’ming currency in Real Estate, Jaitley overlooks villagers?

Measures to curb black money have been on the lips of every Finance Minister and Honorable Minister Shri Arun Jaitley is no exception. As we know, Real Estate business is the largest contributor of black money transactions. He trusts on the JAM (Jandhan, Aadhar, Mobile) generation to move away from such dark deals and build […]...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

CIT Vs. Balaji Traders (2008) 303 ITR 312 (Mad)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax.Vs Balaji Traders. (Madras High Court)

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is leviable under section 271D when there has been repeated violations of section 269SS on the ground that the creditors are genuine persons and there was no revenue loss to the Exchequer...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,435)
Company Law (5,272)
Custom Duty (7,552)
DGFT (4,089)
Excise Duty (4,305)
Fema / RBI (3,938)
Finance (4,105)
Income Tax (31,587)
SEBI (3,289)
Service Tax (3,501)

Search Posts by Date

January 2020
« Dec