Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
The ITAT held that penalty under section 271D could not stand because the AO proceeded on an incorrect premise that receipt of cash on transfer of immovable property through a subsisting GPA made section 269SS applicable. A sale deed could validly be executed through a GPA until cancelled, and there was no material that the GPA had been cancelled before execution of the sale deed. On that basis, the invocation of the penal provision was erroneous, and the Tribunal followed co-ordinate Bench decisions on the same issue. The appeal was allowed and the penalty deleted.
The ITAT held that penalty under section 271D could not stand because the AO proceeded on an incorrect premise that receipt of cash on transfer of immovable property through a subsisting GPA made section 269SS applicable. A sale deed could validly be executed through a GPA until cancelled, and there was no material that the GPA had been cancelled before execution of the sale deed. On that basis, the invocation of the penal provision was erroneous, and the Tribunal followed co-ordinate Bench decisions on the same issue. The appeal was allowed and the penalty deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
