Income Tax : Learn about Section 269SS and penalties for cash transactions in property transfers. Case analysis, judicial pronouncement, and ex...
Income Tax : Explore provisions and penalties in the Income Tax Act 1961 regarding cash transactions. Understand limits for loans, deposits, an...
Income Tax : Discover the legal constraints around cash transactions under India's Income Tax Act. Learn about the various sections that impose...
Income Tax : Through Income tax Act, 1961 cash transaction has been limited, restricted in certain cases. In this article you will get insights...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates,...
Income Tax : In the case of SVT Wholesale Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT, the ITAT Bangalore evaluates the penalty imposed under Section 271D for violating ...
Income Tax : Chennai ITAT ruled that receiving a huge sale consideration in cash violates Sec 269SS, warranting penalty under Sec 271D. Case an...
Income Tax : In Mani Sundaram Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai), cash loans from relatives, later treated as gifts, didn't incur penalty under section 271D...
Income Tax : Explore the case of K.S. Chawla & Sons (HUF) Vs JCIT, where ITAT Delhi delves into penalty proceedings under section 271D of the I...
Income Tax : Explore the case of DCIT Vs Platinum Towers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) regarding personal expenses treated as income, penalties under ...
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...
ITAT Chennai held that amount of Rs. 14 Lakhs received in cash for sale of immovable property is against the provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly penalty under section 271D imposable.
ITAT Indore held that penalty under section 271D and section 271E are not attracted in case of loan given. Accordingly, penalty proceeding imposing penalty u/s 271D/ 271E of the Income Tax Act in case of loan given is invalid.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act is leviable on loan taken by way of cash. Notably, repayment of cash loan by way of cheque wouldn’t exonerate the assessee from levy of penalty.
H.K. Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Allahabad) there was no valid and reasonable cause for assesse to have received loan or deposit of Rs. 1,10,02,000/- in cash from its Director namely Mr. Hemant Kumar Sindhi, more so Allahabad(Now Prayagraj), U.P. is having all the requisite banking facilities available, and there was no reason and […]
It is evident that the assessee had received cash amounts, but deposited in its Bank A/c which is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 269SS. But like any other penalty, the operation of Section 271D with reference to the violation of the provisions contained in Section 269SS also is not automatic.
Hitesh Manshukhbahi Dave Vs JCIT (ITAT Rajkot) Gujarat High Court in the case of Dr. Rajaram L. Akhaniv ITO [2017] 88 taxmann.com 693 (Gujarat) has held that where assessee had accepted a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from his son to meet urgent requirement of depositing margin money in bank account for buying a vehicle […]
Once, it is established that these payments are for construction contract and particularly the AO has made disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 269SS of the Act for levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act.
Dr. Sankaran Sundar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The penalty imposed u/s 271D of the I.T.Act is independent of assessment proceedings completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act. Even without completion of assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, penalty u/s 271D of the I.T.Act can be imposed for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act. […]
Due to paucity of time, the urgency and considering various factors that go into finalizing the transaction, the assessee was forced to accept cash to go ahead with the execution of the sale deed. The above facts clearly stipulated a `reasonable cause’ as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that levy of penalty u/s 271D, for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, is unwarranted as the loan was advanced by the Executive Directors to the company in cash to meet the urgent requirements of the company.
