Tag: penalty u/s 271D
Penalty u/s 271D for violation of Section 269SS can not be escaped by establishing genuineness or bona fides of the transactions – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3752 (2023) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws relied upon:Hareshkumar Bechardas Patel Vs. Jt. CIT (2019) 69 ITR 73 (SN) (Ahd.) (Trib.)ITO …
Penalty u/s 271D initiated when assessee was alive but order invalid if passed in the name of assessee after his death ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3733 (2023) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws relied upon:ITO v. Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai 131 taxmann.com 40 (SC)ITO vs. Durlabhbhai Kanubhai Rajpara 114 taxmann.com …
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 …
Liability of company paid by Director in cash is cash loan u/s 269SS liable to Penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ABCAUS Case Law Citation ABCAUS 3640 (2023) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws relied upon:CIT v. Dimple Yadav, reported in (2015) 280 CTR (All) 309CIT …
Date of initiation of penalty proceedings in assessment order is the relevant date u/s 275(1)(c) for limitation purpose. ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3618 (2022) (11) HC Important Case Laws relied upon by parties Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd.Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. JKD …
Advance taken in cash against sale not loan or deposit u/s 269SS hence no penalty us/ 271D is leviable on the assessee ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3447 (2021) (02) ITAT In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in sustaining the order …
No tax audit in one proprietorship firm-ITAT deleted penalty u/s 271B as when no accounts was maintained, assessee was not be expected to get them audited. ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3166 (2019) (10) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Shri Rajeshbhai Hirabhai Patel Vs. ITOShri Udayshankar …
Cash loan from wife due to business expediency. Penalty u/s 271D deleted as the business was carried on in the interest of family and genuineness/sources was not doubted ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3161 (2019) (10) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Penmetsa Venkata Soma RajuDr. Dutta …
Penalty u/s 271D for taking cash loan from father and paternal aunt deleted following various decisions of High Courts and Tribunals ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3001 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: Mohan Karkare Vs. DCIT (1995)(127 Taxation 104) CIT v. Sunil …
Penalty u/s 271D deleted as cash loan was repaid by cheque. Reasons accepted in quantum proceedings should have been accepted in penalty proceeding ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2992 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: M.S. Lakaiah Dimple Yadav 379 ITR 177 (All.) …
