The case pertains to penalty proceedings u/s 271D for violating ...

Averted as rules against mechanical imposition, upholds and to avoid hardship.

Case Laws Income Tax

November 16, 2024

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 and security deposits from employees, utilized for construction activities. The Assessing Officer, JCIT, and CIT(A) levied penalties despite the assessee providing notarized affidavits and documents proving the genuineness of transactions. The ITAT held that penalties cannot be levied mechanically without establishing unaccounted money or false entries. Regarding Section 271E penalty for repaying deposits in cash, the ITAT observed that not all deposits were repaid in cash, and cash payments were made due to employees' insistence and to avoid hardship. The assessee provided ledger accounts and affidavits supporting the transactions' genuineness. The ITAT ruled that penalties u/ss 271D and 271E were not warranted as the assessee substantiated the transactions' validity, and no unaccounted money or false entries were established.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The case pertains to penalty proceedings u/s 271D for violating ...

Averted as rules against mechanical imposition, upholds and to avoid hardship.

Case Laws Income Tax

November 16, 2024

You may also like:

Levy of penalty - Applicability of the substituted rule for imposition of penalty - The Supreme Court sided with the appellant, holding that the substituted rule from...

Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - the AO has not computed any disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) and Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and only under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of...

CESTAT ALLAHABAD dismissed an appeal due to abatement for adjourning the matter beyond three times, citing Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. Referring to...

Discretionary power for imposition of penalty - Penalty is not prescribed for mechanical imposition because law permits such a levy. It is well settled legal position...

Imposition of penalty - Issue of bogus invoices - Penalty under Rule 26, whether under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 26 or under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 26 can be imposed on a...

Classification of goods - aerosol valve - The third Heading 8424 covers, inter alia, mechanical appliances (whether or not hand operated) for projecting, dispersing or...

Safe Harbour Rule - Income-tax (18th Amendment) Rules, 2022 - Amends Rule 10TD - Notification

Compliance with rule 3A by certain Nidhis - Rule 23A of the Nidhi Rules, 2014 - As amended

Taxability of hardship compensation received by an assessee from a builder for vacating an existing flat for redevelopment purposes. The assessee claimed that such...

Rule 11 of the central Excise Rules read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules,2002 - TThe reason that the goods were not available to confiscation should not be a...

Waiver of pre-deposit – undue hardship – The word undue adds something more than just hardship. It means an excessive hardship or a hardship greater than the...

The doctrine of prospective overruling is applied when a constitutional court overrules a well-established precedent by declaring a new rule but limits its application...

National Financial Reporting Authority (Amendment) Rules, 2019 - Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 5 and Rule 11 amended.

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

This notification amends the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014, by inserting a proviso in sub-rule (2) of rule 9B. The proviso states that a...

Quick Updates: