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 : 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 : This article outlines major penalties under the Income-tax Act for defaults involving tax payments, return filing, TDS compliance,...
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 : ITAT Surat held that absence of satisfaction in the assessment order invalidated the Section 271D penalty, following the Supreme C...
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 : 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...
ITAT Indore held that penalty under section 271D and section 271E are not attracted in case of loan given. Accordingly, penalty proceeding imposing penalty u/s 271D/ 271E of the Income Tax Act in case of loan given is invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act leviable on account of repayment of loan in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 vis-à-vis failure of assessee to prove that such payment is covered by exceptional circumstances covered under section 269T.
Held that there was bonafide belief of the assessee that passing journal entries, even though in violation of mode prescribed u/s. 269SS and section 269T, is permissible. Entries done before judgement of Hon’ble Bombay HC in the case of Triumph International. Penalty deleted on the basis of reasonable cause.
Sunil M. Bhide Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Pune) It is seen from the penalty order that the assessee pleaded before the AO that he started construction of a commercial building on his plot. The construction work was halted because of paucity of funds. The said plot of land along with part construction was leased out […]
ANALYSIS OF SEC 269SS No person shall accept, from any other person, loan, deposit or any specified sum otherwise than by A/c payee cheque, bank draft or use of ECS through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed, if:
Penalty under Section 271E is not permissible in the absence of regular assessment framed against the assessee by the Revenue.
Balwan Singh Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee is engaged as a transporter and has not maintained any regular books of account. The assessment has been made on estimations, keeping in mind the transportation receipts earned by the assessee which also includes some of impugned entries towards cash receipts by way of loan. The assessee […]
Mohit Singh L/H of Late Shri Balwant Singh Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, an assessment under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 147 was completed in the instant case, wherein the Assessing Officer has not observed any repayment of loan in cash as alleged in the penalty order. On perusal […]
Acceptance and repayment of cash for personal purpose between near relatives did not not attract sections 269SS and 269T and, therefore, no penalty could be levied under section 271D/271E.
DCIT Vs Macrotech Developers Ltd. (successor to M/s. Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The ld. CIT(A) gave a categorical finding that the transactions carried out with the aforesaid three parties i.e. Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Limited & Lodha Developers Private Limited, which are subject matter of levy of penalty […]
