Penalty u/s.271D - there is no estopel against the statute and ...

Assessee Appeals Penalty u/s 271D; Case Remanded for Fresh Adjudication, No Estoppel Against Statute.

December 5, 2020

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s.271D - there is no estopel against the statute and therefore, it is open to the assessee to claim before the authorities that a particular item of income is not taxable despite having offered the same in its return of income or even having accepted the same as taxable before the authorities or even in the books of accounts - This appeal filed by the assessee against penalty u/s.271D of the Act for A.Y.2007-08 requires to be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s.271D - there is no estopel against the statute and ...

Assessee Appeals Penalty u/s 271D; Case Remanded for Fresh Adjudication, No Estoppel Against Statute.

December 5, 2020

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

CESTAT upheld Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to remand case back to Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication. The original order was challenged for violating...

Power of commissioner (appeals) to remand back the case - There are no piece of evidence to take a contrary view to the finding of the first appellate authority as to...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has adjudicated on various issues concerning deductions u/ss 80IA(4), 14A, and 35D. Regarding Section 80IA(4) deduction, the...

Levy of penalties under various sections - The Appellate Tribunal, in a consolidated order, addressed several appeals concerning penalties imposed under various sections...

The ITAT Delhi held that the levy of penalty u/s 271D without valid satisfaction for alleged violation u/s 269SS is not justified. The AO must record satisfaction in the...

The ITAT held that for penalty u/s 271D for contravention of section 269SS, recording satisfaction by AO is mandatory. Citing Jaya Laxmi Rice Mills case, it emphasized...

The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication....

The case involves timeliness of appeal filed u/s 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994 before Commissioner (Appeals-II) and refund claim. The Appellate Tribunal found that the...

The HC held that the Commissioner's order under Section 263 of the IT Act constituted an open remand, not a closed remand, as it set aside the assessment order and...

Power of Remand - The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding back the matter for fresh adjudication is set aside and the case is remanded back to the...

Penalty u/s 271D - violation of provisions u/s 269SS - cash receipt claimed as advance against sales - recording of the satisfaction by the AO is sine qua non for...

Levy of penalty u/ss 271D and 271E was challenged - default u/ss 269SS and 269T - assessee received and repaid cash loans from directors and related concerns - assessee...

Power of CIT(A) to dismiss appeals ex-parte - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Section 250(6) mandates the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits and not to dismiss them in...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - fresh assessment in the remand proceedings - AO not only maintained the earlier income but even the appeal instituted by the appellant against...

Penalty u/s 271D or 271E - Penalty u/s.271D or 271E of the Act is concerned, those are independent proceedings and having nothing to do with assessment proceedings or...

Quick Updates: