https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465885 Whether provisions of section 269ST and penalty under section 271DA apply to a transaction dated 23.05.2016. The tribunal held that section 269ST and section 271DA were introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 effective 1.4.2017; penal tax provisions are not retrospective absent express statutory language, and no such retrospective intention exists. The CIT(A)'s invocation/upholding of penalty under section 271DA (for alleged contravention of section 269SS) was therefore legally untenable; the claim that this was a typographical error was rejected insofar as the record shows deliberate reliance on the post-enactment provisions. Consequence: penalty under 271DA/269ST could not be sustained and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2026 13:01:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465885 Whether provisions of section 269ST and penalty under section 271DA apply to a transaction dated 23.05.2016. The tribunal held that section 269ST and section 271DA were introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 effective 1.4.2017; penal tax provisions are not retrospective absent express statutory language, and no such retrospective intention exists. The CIT(A)'s invocation/upholding of penalty under section 271DA (for alleged contravention of section 269SS) was therefore legally untenable; the claim that this was a typographical error was rejected insofar as the record shows deliberate reliance on the post-enactment provisions. Consequence: penalty under 271DA/269ST could not be sustained and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465885