https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781700 ITAT JAIPUR upheld quashment of a penalty under section 271E. The tribunal found the penalty order was time-barred under section 275(1)(c) because it was passed after the limitation date, and no satisfaction for levy of penalty was recorded in the assessment order. The tribunal also held the transactions did not constitute deposits or loan repayments within sections 269SS/269T, so penalty provisions were inapplicable on merits. Both limitation and absence of requisite satisfaction led to ruling in favour of the respondent and against imposition of the penalty. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781700 ITAT JAIPUR upheld quashment of a penalty under section 271E. The tribunal found the penalty order was time-barred under section 275(1)(c) because it was passed after the limitation date, and no satisfaction for levy of penalty was recorded in the assessment order. The tribunal also held the transactions did not constitute deposits or loan repayments within sections 269SS/269T, so penalty provisions were inapplicable on merits. Both limitation and absence of requisite satisfaction led to ruling in favour of the respondent and against imposition of the penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781700