Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
Penalty levied u/s 271D for contravention of Section 269SS, which restricts cash transactions above a specified sum for immovable property. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) failed to reconcile the assessment order and penalty order regarding the violation of Section 269SS. The penalty order should have referenced the AO's communication proposing the penalty initiation. The AO is required to record the satisfaction of Section 269SS violation and reference for penalty initiation in the assessment order itself. The interpretation of "specified sum" as a residuary term encompassing all cash transactions beyond a specified amount is incorrect. The amended Section 269SS applies to cash received as an advance for immovable property transactions, not to the final payment made at the time of registration and execution of the sale deed. The assessee had received cash against the sale of multiple registered sale deeds, not as an advance. Since the payment was made before the sub-registrar during registration, it does not violate Section 269SS. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s 271D is against the provisions of law and is quashed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Penalty levied u/s 271D for contravention of Section 269SS, which restricts cash transactions above a specified sum for immovable property. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) failed to reconcile the assessment order and penalty order regarding the violation of Section 269SS. The penalty order should have referenced the AO's communication proposing the penalty initiation. The AO is required to record the satisfaction of Section 269SS violation and reference for penalty initiation in the assessment order itself. The interpretation of "specified sum" as a residuary term encompassing all cash transactions beyond a specified amount is incorrect. The amended Section 269SS applies to cash received as an advance for immovable property transactions, not to the final payment made at the time of registration and execution of the sale deed. The assessee had received cash against the sale of multiple registered sale deeds, not as an advance. Since the payment was made before the sub-registrar during registration, it does not violate Section 269SS. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s 271D is against the provisions of law and is quashed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
