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...
Mode of taking or accepting certain loans, deposits and specified sums and mode of repayment of loans or deposits and specified advances The earlier provisions contained in section 269SS of the Income-tax Act provide that no person shall take from any person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account […]
As per Section 269SS if specified sum (any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place) taken or accepted in cash is Rs. 20,000 or more , penalty equal to amount taken shall be imposed under S. 271D.
According to section 269SS of Income Tax Act, while transacting Immovable Property, 100% penalty will be levied if seller has accepted an amount of Rs. 20,000 or more in cash from the buyer. e.g. if for selling an immovable property ‘A’ has received an amount of Rs.1 lakh in cash from ‘B’ then ‘A’ has to pay 100% penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.
Measures to curb black money have been on the lips of every Finance Minister and Honorable Minister Shri Arun Jaitley is no exception. As we know, Real Estate business is the largest contributor of black money transactions. He trusts on the JAM (Jandhan, Aadhar, Mobile) generation to move away from such dark deals and build […]
Section 269SS would not be violative when money is exchanged inter-se between the partners and partnership firm in spite of the fact that the partnership firm and individual partners are separate assessees.
Where in case of assessee there was only processing of return under section 143(1)(a) and, there was no finding in order of AO with regard to applicability of section 269T to assessee’s case, no penalty under section 271E was permissible.
There is no dispute about the fact, that the instant cash transactions of the respondent-assessee were with the sister concern, and that, these transactions were between the family, and due to business exigency. A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof is contained in the compilation of accounts, and which has no tax effect
Under the general provision relating to Partnership Act that partnership firm is not a juristic person and for inter relationship different remedies are provided to enforce the rights arising out of their inter se transactions, the issue about separate entities apart, it cannot be doubted that the assessee has acted bona fide and his plea that inter se transactions
The apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa had long ago settled the law that penalty is not to be ordinarily imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law and was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligations. Penalty will also not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so.
