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 : Explore provisions and penalties in the Income Tax Act 1961 regarding cash transactions. Understand limits for loans, deposits, an...
Income Tax : Through Income tax Act, 1961 cash transaction has been limited, restricted in certain cases. In this article you will get insights...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates,...
Income Tax : Detailed analysis of ITO vs Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. case before ITAT Delhi. Penalty order deemed inv...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court held that share application money or its repayment does not fall under Section 269SS & 269T, as the same are n...
Income Tax : Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. ACIT case: ITAT Kolkata directs re-evaluation as AO misinterpreted PCIT's orders on loan payments....
Income Tax : Explore the case of DCIT Vs Platinum Towers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) regarding personal expenses treated as income, penalties under ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi cancels penalty imposed under section 271E of the Income Tax Act on Pawan Kumar for loan repayment via bank transfer, c...
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...
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 […]
Penalty proceedings under section 271D or 271E were independent proceedings and had nothing to do with assessment proceedings or its outcome. Therefore, CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the orders imposing penalty on the ground that the assessment proceedings, during the course of which, penalty u/s.271D and 271E were initiated had been held to be invalid.
Analysis of Section 269SS of the Act This section was introduced in the Act with the objective that Unaccounted cash found in the course of searches carried out by the Income-tax Department is often explained by taxpayers as representing loans taken from or deposits made by various persons. Unaccounted income is also brought into the […]
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.
