Penalty u/s. 271D - Failure to record any satisfaction for ...

Tribunal Rules Penalty u/s 271D Invalid for Lack of Jurisdiction, Citing Supreme Court Precedent.

February 5, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s. 271D - Failure to record any satisfaction for initiating the said penalty proceedings by the A.O - Tribunal held that, the issue before us is no more resintegra in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City [2023 (10) TMI 707 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], therefore, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, the penalty imposed by the Jt.CIT u/s. 271D of the Act cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s. 271D - Failure to record any satisfaction for ...

Tribunal Rules Penalty u/s 271D Invalid for Lack of Jurisdiction, Citing Supreme Court Precedent.

February 5, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Lack of jurisdiction of AO in issuing notice u/s.143 (2) - Change of residential address of the assessee - The Appellate Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised...

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

Penalty u/s 271D or 271E - Penalty u/s.271D or 271E of the Act is concerned, those are independent proceedings and having nothing to do with assessment proceedings or...

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,...

The Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of penalty proceedings u/s 270A due to the failure to specify relevant clauses. It was held that the penalty proceedings...

Reassessment proceedings were held invalid due to lack of proper jurisdiction by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax while issuing the notice u/s 148. The...

The ITAT held that for penalty u/s 271D for contravention of section 269SS, recording satisfaction by AO is mandatory. Citing Jaya Laxmi Rice Mills case, it emphasized...

The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. 271DA instead of u/s. 271D, which led to confusion and violated the assessee's right to a fair hearing....

Penalty proceedings u/s 270A - Applicable rate of penalty - The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the penalty notice cited under-reporting of income, the AO imposed...

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...

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....

Penalty imposed u/s 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal export by arranging lorries. Lack of admissible evidence showing knowledge of goods...

Validity of reopening of assessment - Approval of PCIT u/s 151 - The Tribunal acknowledged the Assessee's argument regarding the mechanical approval granted by the PCIT....

The ITAT Delhi held that the levy of penalty u/s 271D without valid satisfaction for alleged violation u/s 269SS is not justified. The AO must record satisfaction in the...

Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Contravention of Rule 8(3A) - penalty under Rule 25 is not permissible, but penalty under Rule 27 is to be imposed - AT

Quick Updates: