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 allowed the appeal of Assessee X and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271D. The AO had levied penalty on the ground that Assessee X received Rs. 20 lakhs in cash during FY 2008-09, allegedly in contravention of s.269SS by accepting a cash loan or deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000. ITAT accepted the explanation that the amount belonged to Assessee X's father, an agriculturist without a bank account, who had received earnest money from a land transaction and temporarily parked the funds in the assessee's bank account for safety. As the Revenue failed to rebut this explanation and no genuine loan or deposit transaction was proved, ITAT held that penalty u/s 271D was not exigible.
ITAT allowed the appeal of Assessee X and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271D. The AO had levied penalty on the ground that Assessee X received Rs. 20 lakhs in cash during FY 2008-09, allegedly in contravention of s.269SS by accepting a cash loan or deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000. ITAT accepted the explanation that the amount belonged to Assessee X's father, an agriculturist without a bank account, who had received earnest money from a land transaction and temporarily parked the funds in the assessee's bank account for safety. As the Revenue failed to rebut this explanation and no genuine loan or deposit transaction was proved, ITAT held that penalty u/s 271D was not exigible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
