Income Tax : This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences ...
Income Tax : This FAQ serves as a reference for the Income-tax Act provisions relating to cash receipts, loans, repayments, and electronic paym...
Income Tax : The article explains how offences such as wilful tax evasion, failure to file returns, non-payment of TDS/TCS, falsification of re...
Income Tax : This article outlines major offences under the Income-tax Act that may result in prosecution, including tax evasion, non-payment o...
Income Tax : This article explains the statutory powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to waive or reduce penalties in genuine c...
Income Tax : ITAT held the Section 271D penalty was time-barred under Section 275(1)(c) as it was imposed after the prescribed limitation perio...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D is invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment o...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of the Section 271D penalty, holding that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment or...
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...
Bangalore ITAT condones 98-day delay and restores penalty appeals u/s 271D/271E, directing CIT(A) to re-examine the genuine nature of cash received and repaid to a paternal uncle for education.
Bangalore ITAT cancelled a penalty u/s 271D on an 82-year-old for receiving Rs.10 lakh cash from a property sale, finding “reasonable cause” u/s 273B due to his bona fide belief and the transaction’s genuineness.
ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue’s appeal, confirming deletion of a Rs. 25 crore penalty imposed under Section 271D. Tribunal ruled that penalty, based solely on a seized MOU and assumptions without proof of cash movement, was not legally sustainable.
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an ex-parte penalty order issued against Beyond Research And Development Limited, ruling that the denial of an opportunity to be heard violated principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes penalty u/s 271D on cash receipts for agricultural land sale, citing reasonable cause and prior rulings. Appeals allowed
Appeal against cancellation of penalty under Section 271D was dismissed for failure to cure defects despite multiple opportunities. Tribunal left open option for Revenue to refile after compliance.
Pune ITAT voids Rs 1 crore penalty against Karia Builders. Tribunal rules penalty proceedings are invalid if the underlying assessment is legally flawed and highlights the need for proper sanction for reassessment notices.
The ITAT Cochin confirmed a penalty under Section 271D for a taxpayer who accepted a large cash payment for property, ruling that ignorance of the law is not a reasonable cause.
ITAT Cuttack deletes Section 271D penalty against Jogendra Kumar Panda, ruling cash transaction violation pertained to wrong assessment year.
ITAT Chennai strikes down a penalty under Section 271D, ruling that a fabricated, unregistered sale agreement and the lack of proof of cash receipt failed to substantiate the tax department’s claim.
