Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty under Section 271D for accepting cash loans/deposits in violation of Section 269SS. The tribunal found no substantive evidence supporting the appellant's claim of bona fide belief or reasonable cause for cash transactions. The appellant failed to establish factual foundations demonstrating why the statutory provisions were inapplicable. The tribunal emphasized that mere assertions without concrete proof cannot negate the penalty. Consequently, the lower authorities' orders were confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the imposed penalty for non-compliance with statutory cash transaction restrictions.
ITAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty under Section 271D for accepting cash loans/deposits in violation of Section 269SS. The tribunal found no substantive evidence supporting the appellant's claim of bona fide belief or reasonable cause for cash transactions. The appellant failed to establish factual foundations demonstrating why the statutory provisions were inapplicable. The tribunal emphasized that mere assertions without concrete proof cannot negate the penalty. Consequently, the lower authorities' orders were confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the imposed penalty for non-compliance with statutory cash transaction restrictions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.