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 : 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 : The issue was whether multiple medical bills constituted a single transaction under Section 269ST. The Tribunal held that separate...
Income Tax : The tribunal examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating ...
Income Tax : The Court issued notice in a plea to quash criminal proceedings where the applicant argued that alleged cash payments exceeding â‚...
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...
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.
ITAT Delhi rules no penalty for All Fresh Supply Management Pvt. Ltd. under Section 271DA, acknowledging no intent to evade tax. Read the full judgment here.
