Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
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 : ITAT upholds penalty against taxpayer for cash repayment of loans, contravening Section 269T of Income-tax Act. Explore implicatio...
Income Tax : Explore the impact of Income Tax Sections 269SS, 269ST, 269SU, and 269T on transactions via Journal/Book Entries. Learn about legi...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad ITAT held that only the actual period lost during the limitation period can be excluded under Explanation-1 to Secti...
Income Tax : The Telangana High Court set aside a penalty under Section 271D after finding that the assessment order contained no recorded sati...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that levy of penalty under Section 271D requires pending or completed assessment proceedings containing findings o...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that unverified third-party excel sheets without corroborative evidence cannot justify additions under Sections 69 o...
Income Tax : The ITAT ruled that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record satisfaction in as...
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...
B. P. Patel and Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is elementary to say that the ‘satisfaction’ can only be formed by the person who is competent to impose penalty and not a lower ranking authority. The law provides for imposition of penalty by an officer of the rank of the Joint Commissioner. Thus, the […]
A number of new provisions have been introduced in the Income Tax Act from time to time to put restrictions on cash transactions as well as to incentivise the non-cash transactions. Cash transactions have always played a major role in the Indian Economy and consistently were responsible for generation and accumulation of Black Money. The […]
Measures taken to discourage Cash Transactions and to promote Digital Economy by CBDT Introduction:- a) Sections 269SS and 269T which deals with cash payment and repayment of loans and deposits. b) Both the sections were introduced to curb the black money. Tax evasion is one of the serious problems in India causing economic disparities. c) […]
Provisions Of 269SS, 269T, 271D AND 271E As Per Finance Bill 2014 And Finance Bill 2015 And Some Issues Regarding Penalty U/S 271D, 271E And Relating To Amendments. Consequences of contravention of section 269SS: Section 271D of Income Tax Act 1961 provides that if a loan or deposit is accepted in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS then a penalty equivalent to the amount of such loan or deposit may be levied by the Joint commissioner.
No person shall accept any loan or deposit in a single day from another person in any form other than account payee cheque or bank draft, if aggregate amount involved is more than Rs 20,000. This provision has come into force to counteract the evasion of tax by mode of acceptance of money in certain cases. The objective is to prevent transactions in currency thereby allowing account payee cheque and bank draft for allowable transactions.
Transactions between the assessee and the Commission Agent were relating to the sale of agriculture crops, therefore, there was no receipt or repayment of loan or deposit, accordingly penalty levied by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271 E of the Act is also deleted.
Penalty under section 271E for violation of provision of section 269T could not be levied as assessee-company repaid loans advances otherwise than by crossed cheque, however, it substantiated with relevant documents that all the payments made by it were genuine and all the creditors accounted the loans as well as the repayments in their books of account and moreover, it was a mere technical violation.
The person who breaches the provisions of section 269T of the Income Tax Act is liable to pay the penalty under section 271E of the Income Tax Act. The basic understanding of section 269T states that the person cannot repay any loans / deposits / specified advances in cash if the amount of payment is […]
The issue under consideration is whether the issue of penalty notice u/s 271D is justified under the Act? Penalty u/s 271D shall not be levied in the case of near relatives
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.
