HC ruled penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E ...

Penalty Notice Under Sections 271D and 271E Invalid Without Specific Satisfaction Recording by Assessing Officer

February 7, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax HC

HC ruled penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E require explicit satisfaction to be recorded by Assessing Officer during reassessment. Mere recording of satisfaction for section 271(1)(c) proceedings is insufficient. Following Jai Laxmi Rice Mills precedent, where penalty was quashed due to lack of specific satisfaction, the court held that DCIT's recording of satisfaction only for 271(1)(c) without addressing 271D/E requirements was legally deficient. Consequently, the notice issued under section 271E and subsequent proceedings were quashed, with judgment favoring the assessee due to procedural non-compliance in recording mandatory satisfaction.

View Source

← Previous Next →

HC ruled penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E ...

Penalty Notice Under Sections 271D and 271E Invalid Without Specific Satisfaction Recording by Assessing Officer

February 7, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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 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...

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....

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

Section 271(1)(c) penalty was held invalid due to improper issuance of notice, as no proceedings were pending when the notice was issued on 19.12.2019. Section 271A...

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 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...

Penalty u/s 271D and 271E - whether Section 245H of the Act excludes Sections 271D and 271E of the Act from the benefit of immunity by the Commission - Power of...

Penalty order u/s 272A(1)(d) - No co-operation from assessee's side - To the mind of this Bench, ‘non-cooperative attitude’ as such in itself cannot be the basis of...

Quick Updates: