Section 271E

Penalties under the Income-Tax Act, 1961

Income Tax - Under the Income-tax Act, penalties are levied for various defaults committed by the taxpayer. Some of the penalties are mandatory and a few are at the discretion of the tax authorities. In this part, you can gain knowledge about the provisions relating to various penalties leviable under the Income-tax Act....

Read More

All about Income Tax Offences liable to prosecution

Income Tax - Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecution for offences committed by the taxpayer. In this part you can gain knowledge about offences in respect of which prosecutions can be launched under the Income-tax Law....

Read More

Power of Commissioner to Reduce or Waive Income Tax Penalty

Income Tax - In the tutorial on Penalties Under the Income-tax Act, we discussed various penalties imposable under the Income-tax Act in respect of various defaults. Apart from enacting penalty provisions...

Read More

Penalties and Prosecutions Under Income tax Act, 1961

Income Tax - Penalties and Prosecutions Default in complying with provisions of or with conditions prescribed under the Income-tax Act would attract certain penalty and in critical cases prosecutions as well. The document will provide you information about the punishable offences, prosecutions and the quantum of penalties that can be imposed under the...

Read More

Prosecutions and Punishment under Income-Tax Act, 1961

Income Tax - Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against the taxpayers for various offences. In this part you can gain knowledge about the various provisions relating to prosecution which can be launched under the Income-tax Act....

Read More
Sorry No Post Found

Levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E in case of non-genuineness of transactions between director and assessee-company

M/s. Vasan Healthcare P Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (Madras High Court) - Penalty u/s 271D and 271 E was leviable as there was absolutely no genuinity or bonafideness in the transaction done between the promoter/ director and assessee- company....

Read More

Penalty u/s. 271E cannot be levied in case of bonafide belief

Ms. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttak) - Penalty u/s.271E was not leviable as the belief of assessee that return of advance from customers was not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief....

Read More

Cash Loan- Penalty justified on failure to establish Business exigency or urgency 

M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) - M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) High Court held that there was no such reason for regular loan transactions of borrowing and repayment in cash of amounts exceeding Rs.20,000/- so as to escape penal liability under Sections 271E and 271D of the IT Act. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / J...

Read More

Penalty order u/s 271D & 271E would reckon from date when SCN was issued by AO

Income Tax Officer Vs Shri Prashant Sharma (ITAT Jaipur) - Penalty order u/s 271D and 271E would reckon from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the AO and not from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner who is competent to pass the penalty orders....

Read More

Penalty not leviable for cash loan taken/paid to comply re-settlement scheme of BIFR

Monarch Dyestuff Industries And Exports Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad) - Assessee was not liable for penalty under section 271D and 271E for availing cash loans/deposits in violation of section 269SS and 269T as it had availed the facility in order to re-establish itself, and for fulfilment of promises given for the purpose of BIFR which was a reasonable cause foe not le...

Read More

Limitation for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D & 271E

Circular No. 10/2016-Income Tax - (26/04/2016) - It is a settled position that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the limitation period for the imposition of penalty under these provisions would be the expiry of the financial y...

Read More

Limitation commencement for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D &271E

Circular No. 09/DV/2016 (Departmental View) - (26/04/2016) - It has been brought to notice of CBDT that there are conflicting interpretations of various High Courts on the issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Income tax Act, 1961commences at the level of the Assessing Officer (below the rank of Joint Commi...

Read More

Recent Posts in "Section 271E"

Penalties under the Income-Tax Act, 1961

Under the Income-tax Act, penalties are levied for various defaults committed by the taxpayer. Some of the penalties are mandatory and a few are at the discretion of the tax authorities. In this part, you can gain knowledge about the provisions relating to various penalties leviable under the Income-tax Act....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

All about Income Tax Offences liable to prosecution

Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecution for offences committed by the taxpayer. In this part you can gain knowledge about offences in respect of which prosecutions can be launched under the Income-tax Law....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

Power of Commissioner to Reduce or Waive Income Tax Penalty

In the tutorial on Penalties Under the Income-tax Act, we discussed various penalties imposable under the Income-tax Act in respect of various defaults. Apart from enacting penalty provisions...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

Levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E in case of non-genuineness of transactions between director and assessee-company

M/s. Vasan Healthcare P Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (Madras High Court)

Penalty u/s 271D and 271 E was leviable as there was absolutely no genuinity or bonafideness in the transaction done between the promoter/ director and assessee- company....

Read More

Penalty u/s. 271E cannot be levied in case of bonafide belief

Ms. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttak)

Penalty u/s.271E was not leviable as the belief of assessee that return of advance from customers was not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief....

Read More

Cash Loan- Penalty justified on failure to establish Business exigency or urgency 

M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)

M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) High Court held that there was no such reason for regular loan transactions of borrowing and repayment in cash of amounts exceeding Rs.20,000/- so as to escape penal liability under Sections 271E and 271D of the IT Act. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT These […]...

Read More

Penalty order u/s 271D & 271E would reckon from date when SCN was issued by AO

Income Tax Officer Vs Shri Prashant Sharma (ITAT Jaipur)

Penalty order u/s 271D and 271E would reckon from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the AO and not from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner who is competent to pass the penalty orders....

Read More

Penalty not leviable for cash loan taken/paid to comply re-settlement scheme of BIFR

Monarch Dyestuff Industries And Exports Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)

Assessee was not liable for penalty under section 271D and 271E for availing cash loans/deposits in violation of section 269SS and 269T as it had availed the facility in order to re-establish itself, and for fulfilment of promises given for the purpose of BIFR which was a reasonable cause foe not levying penalty....

Read More

Penalty order barred by limitation u/s 275(1)(c) is not valid

ITO Vs Shri Prashant Sharma (ITAT Jaipur)

Order of penalty passed under sections 271D and 271E was to set aside as the same was passed after expiry of six months from the action initiated for imposition of penalty and barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c)....

Read More

No Penalty U/s. 271E on cash refund of advance from customers under Bonafide Belief

M/s. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack)

 M/s. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) Belief of the assessee that return of advance from customers is not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s.271E of the Act of Rs.21,49,943/- cannot be sustained. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the assessee against [&hel...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,086)
Company Law (4,558)
Custom Duty (7,245)
DGFT (3,891)
Excise Duty (4,187)
Fema / RBI (3,653)
Finance (3,856)
Income Tax (29,443)
SEBI (3,087)
Service Tax (3,442)

Search Posts by Date

April 2019
M T W T F S S
« Mar    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930