Asha Vinod Tatte v/s Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, an agriculturist, sold agricultural land for ` 20 lakh to Shri Pratik Deshmukh. The assessee received ` 6,51,000 in cash, leading the Assessing Officer to levy a penalty of ` 6,51,000 under Section 271-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for violating Section 269-SS of the Act. The assessee appealed against the penalty order, arguing that the transaction was between agriculturists and not subject to Section 269-SS. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is valid?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Ramvir Yadav vs ITO

  Delhi 'B' Bench benchAY 2022-23Partly Allowed

• Rajbir Singh Vs Income Tax Officer, Sonipat, Haryana

• Debasish Banerjee vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• Kuldeep Singh vs. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench

• Bisauha Ram Verma Vs ITO-1(2), Raipur

  Raipur bench

• Sh. Raman Singh Sidhu Vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2006-07 to 2007-08, 2011-12 to 2012-13 & 2008-09 to 2010-11Dismissed