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 : 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 : 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 : 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...
M/s. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) Belief of the assessee that return of advance from customers is not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s.271E of the Act of Rs.21,49,943/- cannot be sustained. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the assessee against […]
Shri Tej Narayan Agarwal Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Amount received and repaid by the assessee subsequently is not a loan. This is a transaction done on behalf of his children to accommodate tham in obtaining DD’s without charges and cannot be considered as taking of loan or repayment of loan in cash. Facts of […]
The ld. counsel vehemently stated that the legislative intent in prohibiting the acceptance and repayment of money in cash over and above Rs. 20,000/- is to check the unaccounted money and not to hit the genuine business need.
Sri Jagmohan Sharma Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The transactions between these family members are neither loans nor deposit and purely a family system and purely a family requirement to help each other in the needy hours, for example medical help, education help and expenses to run the family. That is, one member of the family […]
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.
