S. 269SS/ 271D Penalty: It is not enough for the assessee to show that the transaction of taking loan/ deposit by cash is genuine or bona fide. It has also to be shown that there was reasonable cause u/s 273B for the assessee being unable to take the loan/deposit by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft
S. 147/148: If the recorded reasons do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely state that it would be at least Rs.1,00,000, and if the reopening is to “verify” suspicious transactions, prima-facie, the reasons do not indicate reasonable belief of the AO and the notice is without jurisdiction
An HUF is partner in a firm and remuneration is paid to the Karta of HUF – whether allowable as deduction u/s 40(b) of The Income Tax Act? In whose hands the remuneration is taxable – individual or HUF?
Simultaneous deduction u/s 54F and 54B from capital gain arising on sale of eligible agricultural land – whether permissible?
MP High Court upholds penalty of Rs. 1 crore 32 lakhs for mere non updation of vehicle number on the e-way bill.
Addition out of opening capital/ cash balance – whether permissible by alleging the same as unexplained?
PROVISION FOR – leave encashment liability/ employee related payables or any other reasonably ascertainable liabilities – created by companies on the basis of AS-15/Acturial certificate etc.- whether allowable for tax purposes?
Whether when the assessee fails to establish the urgent nature of business necessities for taking loans from its Directors in cash, such transaction warrants levy of penalty u/s 271D – YES: ITAT
