Penalty u/s 271D - violation of provisions of section 269SS - AO ...

Penalty u/s 271D Overturned Due to Lack of Assessing Officer's Satisfaction on Section 269SS Violation.

June 13, 2019

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s 271D - violation of provisions of section 269SS - AO has not at all recorded his satisfaction that the assessee has contravened the provisions of section 269SS warranting levy of penalty u/s 271D - penalty not sustainable

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271D - violation of provisions of section 269SS - AO ...

Penalty u/s 271D Overturned Due to Lack of Assessing Officer's Satisfaction on Section 269SS Violation.

June 13, 2019

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

The High Court held that for levying penalty u/s 271D for violation of Section 269SS, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction that the provisions were violated....

Penalty u/s 271D - violation of provisions u/s 269SS - cash receipt claimed as advance against sales - recording of the satisfaction by the AO is sine qua non for...

The case involved a challenge to penalty orders u/ss 271D and 271E before the Appellate Tribunal. The issue revolved around the reassessment proceedings being quashed,...

Penalty u/s 271D for violation of Section 269SS was challenged. ITAT held that where assessee received sale consideration for immovable property in cash exceeding Rs....

HC ruled penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E require explicit satisfaction to be recorded by Assessing Officer during reassessment. Mere recording of...

Penalty u/s 271D / 271E - violation of provisions of Sec.269SS and 269T - basis of presumption u/s 132(4A) - Period of limitation - The Tribunal found that the penalty...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant, during reassessment proceedings, had filed their return of income but failed to provide...

Levy of penalties under various sections - The Appellate Tribunal, in a consolidated order, addressed several appeals concerning penalties imposed under various sections...

The High Court quashed the reopening of assessments u/s 148, holding that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were cryptic, vague, lacking nexus, and...

Penalty levied u/s 271D for contravention of Section 269SS, which restricts cash transactions above a specified sum for immovable property. The key points are: The...

Penalty u/s 270A was imposed by disallowing 30% of indexed cost of development expenses concerning Long Term Capital Gain offered by the assessee due to failure to...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - assessee had failed to provide full submissions - penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act deserves to be...

AO initiated the penalty u/s 271E for violation of sec. 269TT, but levied penalty u/s 271D for violation of the provisions of sec. 269SS. From this conduct of the AO, it...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer solely based on the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission withdrawing immunity from penalty and...

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Assessing Officer to usurp the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment - The first Assessing Officer has made the reassessment after...

Quick Updates: