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 : ITAT Bangalore held that imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act unwarranted as reasonable cause shown for ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held penalty initiation under Sections 271D/271E must be noted in assessment order; temporary family loans without ...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Chennai's decision on penalties under sections 269SS and 269T for Pearl Beach Promoters P. Ltd....
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Bangalore order in Laxmilal Badolla Vs NFAC. Penalty under Sec 271D cancelled due to reasonable cau...
Income Tax : Penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed if assessment proceedings are quashed. Detailed analysis of Rav...
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...
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.
M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) High Court held that there was no such reason for regular loan transactions of borrowing and repayment in cash of amounts exceeding Rs.20,000/- so as to escape penal liability under Sections 271E and 271D of the IT Act. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT These […]
Assessee was not liable for penalty under section 271D and 271E for availing cash loans/deposits in violation of section 269SS and 269T as it had availed the facility in order to re-establish itself, and for fulfilment of promises given for the purpose of BIFR which was a reasonable cause foe not levying penalty.
