Tag: Section 269SS
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 for cash loan from father mother and brothers as loan was from close family relations and there was a reasonable cause u/s 273B ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2927 (2019) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties CIT vs. M. …
Penalty u/s 271D unjustified when bank refused loan and cash was obtained for meeting urgent business expenses as it was a reasonable cause u/s 273B ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2750 (2019) (01) ITAT The instant appeal by the assessee was against the order passed by the Commissioner …
Penalty u/s 271D was absurd when assessee himself was karta of HUF from where he obtained cash loan-ITAT deleted penalty for violation of section 269SS ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2749 (2019) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties Rajendra Suryavanshi Vs ACIT (2011) 141 …
No penalty u/s 271D can be levied when cash loans were treated as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2743 (2019) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT CIT vs. Standard …
