penalty u/s 271d

Penalty u/s 271D is invoked when there is a violation of provisions of sec 269SS of the Act i.e. any person accepts loan / deposits from other person, by a way other than an account payee Cheque /DD and where the amount of loan / deposit borrowed or the

21/4/2015 · 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

Know the details of Penalty U/s 271DA For Violation Of S. 269ST Of The Income-tax Act, 1961. The case has been explained in detail for your accurate info

作者: Diksha Garg

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

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

No Penalty u/s 271D & 271E if there is a Reasonable cause Short Note:No Penalty u/s 271D & 271E if there is a Reasonable cause Where assessee availed cash loans/deposits in violation of section 269SS and 269T, however, in order to re-establish itself, and for

作者: The Taxtalk

SOME INTERESTING ASPECTS OF PENALTY U/S 271D r.w.s 269SS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 Penalty under section 271D the Income-tax Act, 1961 is imposed upon contraventions of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. In this article, an attempt

CBDT Clarification on Period of Limitation for Penalty u/s 271D and 271E CBDT vide its Circular No. 10/2016 dated 26-04-2016 clarified that the period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of

b) CBDT Clarification Circular on Commencement of Limitation for Penalty Proceedings The CBDT vide Circular No. 10/2016 dt. 26th April, 2016 has clarified it’s position in the matter of ‘Limitation for penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E of the 1.

5. It was held by the Tribunal in this case that the penalty proceedings in assessment year 2005-06 u/s 271D and 271E were initiated while completing the assessment relating to assessment year 2007-08 and therefore, there is no merit in the said initiation of6.

Income Tax IT Judgement S. 269SS/ 271D Penalty: It is not enough for the assessee to show that the transaction of taking loan/ deposit by cash is genuine or bona fide. It has also to be shown that there was reasonable cause u/s 273B for the assessee being

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

The ITAT Chandigarh in the case of M/s Chawla Chemtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. the Joint CIT, Gobindgarh – 2016 (4) TMI 378 has held that no penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act can be levied if transactions are genuine. Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act deals with

From the above judgements it seems to be clear that the said circular of the Board is binding on the department and no penalty u/s. 271B can be initiated or levied for non filing of audit report u/s. 44AB, if the Assessee obtains the said report before the due date.

3/11/2016 · This news read:- https://goo.gl/1xbffv AO observed that assessee had deposited cash on various dates totalling Rs 7.5 lakhs. As assessee was unable to provide information on the source of cash, AO made addition u/s 68 for unexplained cash credit. Before CIT(A) source of cash was explained and CIT(A) deleted addition

作者: Thakurani

H: Addition u/s 68 on account of share premium – violation under section H : TDS u/s 195 – In the instant case after examining the facts we are of H : Penalty u/s. 271 – Disallowance of expenses were beyond the scope of l

With this legislative intention in mind, courts used to cancel the penalty levied u/s 271D/271E for contravention of provisions of section 269SS/269T as the case may be, by observing that the acceptance/ repayment of loan in the cash being genuine and

Further, the Tribunal, assessee’s in its own case vide Order dated 26.02.2010 in ITA No. 1156 to 1159/Hyd/2009 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2007-08 while deleting the penalty levied u/s 271D & 271E held that money received by assessee cooperatives

Additional CIT [2009] 122 (JD.) 190 that where the A.O having treated the impugned amount of deposit as income, he is precluded from treating the same amount as deposit or loan for the purpose of section 269SS and levy penalty u/s 271D. The penalty ought to

按一下以在 Bing 上檢視0:49

7/11/2016 · Read more about this news here: Assessee filed his return of income at Rs.1,24,460. AO imposed penalty u/s 271D for contravention of s 269SS for accepting loan of exceeding Rs.20,000 as the assessee had accepted cash

作者: Thakurani

the penalty u/s 271D of the Act should not be levied. In this regard, the assessee had placed reliance on the decision rendered by Mumbai G bench of ITAT in the case of Zodiac Developers P Ltd (ITA No.31/Mum/2011 dated 10.10.2014 observed that if

ITA No. 210/Kol/2013 A.Y 2007-08 – Penalty u/s 271D 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether penalty u/s 271D of the Act could be levied for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.

Business Setup India/Abroad Business set up in India Entry Strategy Growth Strategy Diversification Strategy Closing Strategy Business Setup Outside India Audit & Assurance Internal Audits Management Audits Sox Audits & Clause 49 Due diligence audit Tax

Penalty us 271D can’t be escaped even if cash received in excess of Rs. 20,000 was deposited in bank on same day : HC Madras High Court in matter of M/s.Vasan Healthcare P Ltd v/s The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax has adjudged that Penalty u/s

Penalty u s 271D default of provisions of section 269SS recording of satisfaction since the assessment order as well as the order of the JCIT are devoid of any satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u s 271D no penalty can be levied HOME

Mumbai ITAT Special Bench (‘SB’) confirms penalty levy u/s. u/s 271D on assessee -company for receiving cash loans from one of its directors during AY 2008-09 as assessee failed to demonstrate bonafide reasons for not accepting them by account payee

Accordingly the then Addl. CIT initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E of the Act on 23.1.2007 and levied penalties u/s 271D and 271E on 26.6.2007. Thus it is clear that the initiation and subsequent levy of penalties were absolutely in order and

IT/CIRCULAR : Section 271D, Read with Section 271E, of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Failure to Comply With Provisions of Section 269SS – Penalty For – Limitation for Penalty Proceedings Under Sections 271D

No Penalty to be levied u/s 271D or 271E if there is reasonable cause: As per Section 273B of Income Tax Act no penalty shall be levied if the failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS or 269T is due to some reasonable cause. Now the question

Madras H.C : The Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the orders of the respondent in levying penalty under section 271D of the Act for accepting loan in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 within the purview of the provisions in section 269SS of the Act for the

· PDF 檔案

* Penalty u/s 271B can be initiated or levied if the assessee fails to get the accounts audited and obtain a report u/s 44AB before the specified date, i.e. due date u/s 139(1) {30th September of the assessment year}. * Penalty u/s 271B could also be initiated or

· PDF 檔案

[As amended by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019] As per section 221(1), if a taxpayer is treated as an assessee in default, then he shall be liable to pay penalty of such an amount as the Assessing Officer may impose. However, penalty cannot exceed the amount of tax

AO imposed penalty u/s 271D, as the assessee had contravened s 269SS by taking loan exceeding Rs.20,000, otherwise than by account payee cheque or draft. 6. CIT(A) upheld the penalty. On appeal, the ITAT held as under: 7.

The two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices A.K Sikri and R.F. Nariman, in a recent order observed that the provisions of sections 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked after 6 months of limitation period. The Apex

The A.O levied penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) observed that introduction of capital contributed by the partner in the partnership firm does not fall under the ambit of loan or deposit

SOME INTERESTING ASPECTS OF PENALTY U/S 271D r.w.s 269SS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 Share Get link Facebook Twitter Pinterest Email Other Apps 2 comments Older Posts Powered by Blogger Above article is personal view of author and

The penalty In this case cannot be levied u/s 271D of the Act. for receiving the cash from the borrower, by the assessee. 7. In view of this, in our opinion, CIT (A) is justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271D.