Income Tax : Supreme Court ruling on cash property deal cites wrong tax law (269ST instead of 269SS), but mandates reporting of large cash tra...
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...
CA, CS, CMA : जानें जीएसटी और आयकर एक्ट में नकद संव्यवहार के नि...
Income Tax : It has also been decided that the restriction on cash transaction under section 269ST shall not apply to withdrawal of cash from ...
Income Tax : SC mandates reporting of cash transactions over ₹2L under Section 269ST, directing courts, IT authorities, and registrars to ens...
Income Tax : The plaintiff entity is a company engaged in the business of constructing and redeveloping immovable properties, either on a contr...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court held that imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Income Tax Act is justifiable since there is no inordi...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court sets aside ₹14.63 crore penalty on Property Plus Realtors, ruling the order was issued beyond the statutory lim...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as AO exercised a plau...
Income Tax : Circular No. 22 of 2017 F.No.370142/10/2017-TPL Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (Central Board of Di...
SC mandates reporting of cash transactions over ₹2L under Section 269ST, directing courts, IT authorities, and registrars to ensure compliance and curb violations.
Supreme Court ruling on cash property deal cites wrong tax law (269ST instead of 269SS), but mandates reporting of large cash transactions to IT dept.
The plaintiff entity is a company engaged in the business of constructing and redeveloping immovable properties, either on a contractual or collaborative basis, and subsequently selling such properties.
Delhi High Court held that imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Income Tax Act is justifiable since there is no inordinately and inexplicably delay in initiation of penalty proceedings. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifications on Section 271AAB.
Delhi High Court sets aside ₹14.63 crore penalty on Property Plus Realtors, ruling the order was issued beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 275(1)(c).
Income Tax Act amendments propose penalties by Assessing Officers instead of Joint Commissioners. Omission of section 271BB and changes to section 246A included.
Post-Finance Bill 2025, penalties under specified sections of the Income-tax Act will be levied by the Assessing Officer, with Joint Commissioner approval for higher amounts.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as AO exercised a plausible and legally valid view and revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because PCIT holds a different view.
Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) had authority to make additions to the declared income of taxpayers as ITSC’s role was not confined to regular assessments but extended to holistic evaluations of the disclosures and additional income brought to its notice through settlement proceedings.
