Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be imposed when the assessment order lacks recorded satisfaction of a 26...
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...
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 : Penalty under section 271DA could not be sustained merely on the basis of unverified seized data without independent corroborative...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to record a clear and consci...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted penalties imposed for alleged cash transactions after holding that the electronic evidence relied upon by the R...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court held that reassessment proceedings based on loose papers referring to non-agricultural land could not justify r...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that consolidated Excel entries showing aggregate cash sales were insufficient to establish receipt of ₹2 lakh...
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...
The Karnataka High Court set aside a penalty notice and order under Section 271DA for violating Section 269ST, holding the proceedings were time-barred. Following the K. Umesh Shetty precedent, the Court ruled that the delay between the AO’s reference and the penalty notice constituted unreasonable laches, vitiating the entire action.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that provisions of section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act gets applicable as source of undisclosed income admitted during the course of survey not explained. Merely disclosing and paying tax doesn’t protect assessee from clutches of section 69A.
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.
