The case involved a challenge to penalty orders u/ss 271D and ...

Case challenged penalty orders u/s. 271D and 271E due to reassessment proceedings being quashed. Tribunal ruled penalties baseless.

July 2, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

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, leading to the argument that penalty proceedings should not stand. The Assessing Officer alleged violations u/ss 269SS and 269T due to transactions involving loans taken and repayments made outside the prescribed methods. The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings had been invalidated, rendering the penalty proceedings baseless. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The case involved a challenge to penalty orders u/ss 271D and ...

Case challenged penalty orders u/s. 271D and 271E due to reassessment proceedings being quashed. Tribunal ruled penalties baseless.

July 2, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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 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 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...

Validity of Penalty u/s 271D and u/s 271E - Penalty proceeding as independent of the assessment proceeding - absence of satisfaction recorded in the reassessment u/s 147...

The case pertains to penalty proceedings u/s 271D for violating Section 269SS and Section 271E of the Income Tax Act. The assessee received Rs. 18 lakh from a trustee...

Levy of penalties u/s 271D and 271E for the violation of sections 269SS and 269T, respectively - The Tribunal, after reviewing precedents from the Supreme Court and...

Levy of penalty u/ss 271D and 271E was challenged - default u/ss 269SS and 269T - assessee received and repaid cash loans from directors and related concerns - assessee...

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.271D & 271E - Period of limitation for imposing penalty u/s 275(1)(c) - he discussion by the AO in the assessment order and making reference to the Addl. CIT...

Validity of order passed u/ss 154/147/143(3) - Disallowance of prior period expenses - Relevant previous year being first year of assessee's business, no prior period...

The High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, holding it to be a case of "change of opinion" and...

The ITAT quashed penalty proceedings under section 271D imposed on the assessee for accepting cash loans of Rs. 61,50,000/- in violation of section 269SS. The Tribunal...

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 proceedings u/s 271D, 271E and 271AAA - period of limitation - the period of six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty was...

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - ‘loan given” was believed to be undisclosed income of assessee - penalty u/s 271D and 271E - the “original-conclusion” was not faulty...

Quick Updates: