Tag: penalty u/s 271e
No penalty can be levied if AO failed to record such satisfaction in assessment order. Penalty proceedings would necessarily be initiated in the quantum assessment order itself. In a recent judgment, ITAT has deleted income tax penalty u/s 271D and 271E holding that no penalty can be levied …
If one proceeding is saved, other has to be quashed – interesting judgment of ITAT on reassessment and penalty proceedings. ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3649 (2023) (01) ITAT This interesting judgment of the ITAT deals with one quantum-appeal filed by assessee against the order passed by Commissioner of …
Penalty u/s 271E deleted when loan was paid in cash to avoid default effecting CIBIL score as signed cheque books were not available with staff ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3439 (2021) (01) ITAT Important case law relied referred:Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa reported in (1972) 083 …
No penalty u/s 271E where persons are properly identified and transactions are genuine as there can be no attempt to evade tax – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3318 (2020) (06) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Industrial Enterprises vs. DCIT 73 ITD 252ADIT vs. Kumari …
Penalty u/s 271E deleted in the absence of proof /receipt acknowledging the repayment of loan in cash by the assessee. ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3139 (2019) (09) ITAT In the instant case, the assessee had filed appeal against the order of the CIT(A) whereby he had confirmed levy …
Penalty u/s 271E for repayment of loan in cash was deleted as the NBFC had insisted on cash payment due to weak financial position and default in loan repayment ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2819 (2019) (03) ITAT The appeal involved was filed by the assessee against the …
Cash deposited in bank by friend for making DD for participating in tender was not loan or deposits u/s 269SS or 269T- ITAT deleted penalty levied u/s 271D and 271E ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2719 (2019) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: OMEC Engineers Vs CIT …
Cash loan from father to son for financial support not covered u/s 269SS. Repayment also not covered u/s 269T-Tribunal deletes penalty u/s 271D and 271E ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2387 (2018) 06 ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: Anant Himatsingk vs Addl. Commissioner of …
Penalty 271E-Cash repayment of FDR by Bank for violation u/s 269T deleted The penal provisions are to curb black money and benami transactions and not genuine ones – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: 957 2016 (06) ITAT Assessment Year: 2009-10 Date/Month of Judgment: June, 2016 Brief Facts of the Case: …
