https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464643 Penalty under s. 271D for alleged contravention of s. 269SS was challenged on jurisdiction, contending that penalty proceedings were not maintainable pending assessment appeals. Relying on HC authority that penalties for defaults under ss. 269SS/269T are independent of assessment proceedings, the Tribunal held the initiation was within jurisdiction and rejected that objection. On merits, the Tribunal held that "specified sum" in the Explanation to s. 269SS (inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015) targets cash advances against transfer of immovable property, not cash paid in full at the time of registration; such transactions are instead addressed by s. 269ST/271DA. Consequently, s. 269SS was wrongly invoked and the s. 271D penalty was deleted. en-us Mon, 13 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464643 Penalty under s. 271D for alleged contravention of s. 269SS was challenged on jurisdiction, contending that penalty proceedings were not maintainable pending assessment appeals. Relying on HC authority that penalties for defaults under ss. 269SS/269T are independent of assessment proceedings, the Tribunal held the initiation was within jurisdiction and rejected that objection. On merits, the Tribunal held that "specified sum" in the Explanation to s. 269SS (inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015) targets cash advances against transfer of immovable property, not cash paid in full at the time of registration; such transactions are instead addressed by s. 269ST/271DA. Consequently, s. 269SS was wrongly invoked and the s. 271D penalty was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464643