Assessee not liable for penalties u/s 271E/271D for violation of ...

ITAT Rules Assessee Not Liable for Penalties u/ss 271E and 271D Due to Lack of Inherited Assets.

January 13, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Assessee not liable for penalties u/s 271E/271D for violation of sections 269SS/269ST by company where she was neither shareholder nor director. ITAT held assessee cannot be fastened with liability for acts/omissions of her deceased husband who was director, as she neither inherited any estate from him nor was involved in company's dealings. Provisions of section 159(6) limit legal representative's liability to extent of assets acquired. Revenue failed to establish assessee received any estate from late husband. Penalties deleted.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Assessee not liable for penalties u/s 271E/271D for violation of ...

ITAT Rules Assessee Not Liable for Penalties u/ss 271E and 271D Due to Lack of Inherited Assets.

January 13, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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...

Penalties levied u/ss 271D and 271E were challenged. The assessee was found to have violated Sections 269SS and 269T. However, there was no concrete finding that the...

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 for violation of Section 269SS was challenged. ITAT held that where assessee received sale consideration for immovable property in cash exceeding Rs....

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,...

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 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...

Penalty u/s. 271D - assessee has repaid loans/ deposits from various sister concerns through journal entries, i.e., otherwise than account payee cheques/draft - though...

Penalty u/s 271D & 271E - allegation of cash loan having been taken/repaid - The ITAT underscored the principle that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E for...

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...

Condonation of delay - Delay in filling of an appeal before ITAT - The ITAT observed taht the appeal was delayed by 17 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to...

Violation of the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T - scope of the term "loan" and "deposit" - Penalty u/s 271D and 271E - amount received on account of share...

Penalty imposed u/s 271D and 271E - the availing and re–payment of loan through book entries was prior to 12th June 2012. Therefore non–compliance to the provisions of...

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...

Quick Updates: