ITO v. Amarnath Shivraj (HUF)

1 SOT 346Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#2839 most cited

What is ITO v. Amarnath Shivraj (HUF) authority for?

Penalties levied under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS may be cancelled. This applies particularly when transactions, such as salary or rent adjustments made through journal entries, do not involve actual cash receipts or payments.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Amarnath Shivraj (HUF) · Section 271D penalty · Section 269SS contravention · penalty cancellation · journal entry · loan or deposit · cash transaction · non-cash transaction · reasonable cause · ITAT Agra

Judgments citing ITO v. Amarnath Shivraj (HUF)

Showing 120 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

ITO v. Amarnath Shivraj (HUF) (1 SOT 346) — Cited in 41 Judgments | BharatTax