Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Rajasthan High Court

Where reasonable explanation is furnished, levy of penalty u/s 271D is not justified

July 26, 2007 1986 Views 0 comment Print

In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that money was loaned or kept deposited for a fixed period or repayable on demand. Further, the sister concerns and the assessee were owned by the same family group of people with a common managing partner with centralised accounts under the same roof

Amount paid by firm to partners or vice versa is not a loan

January 23, 2007 999 Views 0 comment Print

Under the general provision relating to Partnership Act that partnership firm is not a juristic person and for inter relationship different remedies are provided to enforce the rights arising out of their inter se transactions, the issue about separate entities apart, it cannot be doubted that the assessee has acted bona fide and his plea that inter se transactions

Section 40A(3) Exceptions of Rule 6DD are not exhaustive and must be interpreted liberally

November 7, 2006 6047 Views 0 comment Print

Ordinarily where the Income-tax Officer is satisfied about the genuineness of the transaction and payment and identification of the cash payment is established, the Income-tax Officer shall record his satisfaction about the fulfilment of the conditions for allowing the benefit of Rule 6DD(j). Apparently, Section 40A(3) was intended to penalize the tax evader and not the honest transactions and that is why after framing of Rule 6DD(j)

Defination of terms used in Section 44AB

August 2, 2006 8840 Views 0 comment Print

This appeal is arising out of the order of the Tribunal dt. 27th April, 2001 sustaining the penalty levied against the assessee-appellant under Section 271B for failure on the part of the assessee to get its accounts audited and obtain the report of such audit before the date prescribed under Section 44AB.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728