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 Delhi quashes penalty under Section 271D as Section 153C assessment was declared void for lack of incriminating material, cit...
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 : 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 Bangalore held that any proceedings taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative. However, penalty order passed in the name of death person after his death is invalid.
Jagdish Chandra Suwalka Vs JCIT (ITAT Jaipur) ITAT observed that the provisions contained u/s 275(1)(a)are not applicable on the facts of present case for the reason that undisputedly no appeal has been filed against the assessment order passed on 28.12.2017. Therefore, it cannot be said that the relevant assessment or other order was subjected to […]
ITAT Jaipur rules in favor of Shri Deepak Mata, deleting penalties under Sections 271E and 271D for loan transactions below Rs.20,000 threshold.
Share application money is not loan or deposit and hence not falls u/s 269SS of the Act and penalty u/s 271D cannot be levied.
ITAT Bangalore held that provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied when explanation given by the assesse constitutes a reasonable cause. Accordingly, concluded that bonafide business transaction cannot be considered for levying the penalty u/s 271D of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that share application money received in cash for allotment of shares would not amount either to a loan or deposit within the meaning of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271D not leviable.
ITAT Delhi held that in absence of any reasonable cause for taking cash loan (i.e. contravening provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act), penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act duly leviable.
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.
