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...
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.
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).
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
