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...
Punjab and Haryana High Court held in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Tehal Singh Khara & Sons that Penalty under section 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 not justified for Contravention of section 269SS if assessee had given reasonable cause for entering into the cash transactions, as creditors from whom the cash was received […]
Penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under Sections 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it.
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 year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.
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 Commissioner of Income Tax.) or at level of the Range authority i.e. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax./Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Jayantilal Vaishnav HUF vs. JCIT that the reasonable cause u/s 273B need to be seen from the context of the situation where a person is reasonably and under bonafide belief of taking a action beyond his control i.e. cause which prevent a reasonable person in ordinary
Global Realty Heritage Venture (Cochin) (P.) Ltd., vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) In the absence of any such evidence the plea of bonafide belief in the peculiar circumstances cannot be discarded. It is seen that the assessee has consistently canvassed that there was a bonafide belief that the amount taken
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. that in terms of the provision u/s 275 (1) (c), there are two distinct periods of limitation for passing a penalty order, and one that expires later will apply.
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision held that the penalty proceeding under Sec 271D and 271E can be initiated by Joint commissioner only and the limitation period of six months to be reckoned from the end of month of initiation of penalty proceedings by Joint
ITAT held in Envogue Wood Working Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT that if the assessee had taken and repaid the loan in cash and provided the sufficient reasonable cause of doing such then penalty u/s 271D & 271E would not be imposed.
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd., 345 ITR 270, held that settling claims by making journal entries in the respective books is also one of the recognized modes of repaying loan or deposit. In the absence of any finding recorded in the assessment order or in the penalty order to the effect that the repayment of loan or deposit was not a bona fide transaction and was made with a view to evade tax, the cause shown by the assessee was a reasonable cause and in view of section 273B of the Act, no penalty under section 271 E could be imposed for contravening the provisions of section 269T of the Act.
