Income Tax : The provisions regulate acceptance, payment, and receipt of cash beyond specified limits. They impose strict penalties to discoura...
Income Tax : Covers the latest cash withdrawal, deposit, and loan limits. Takeaway: exceeding thresholds can trigger TDS, penalties, and blocke...
Income Tax : Explains when director cash infusions qualify as current account transactions and why genuine business support may fall outside Se...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be imposed when the assessment order lacks recorded satisfaction of a 26...
Income Tax : Summary of income-tax rules on cash limits, including disallowance of cash expenditure, restrictions on loans, deposits, receipts,...
Income Tax : DON’T √ Accept cash of Rs. 2,00,000 or more in aggregate from a single person in a day or for one or more transactions r...
Income Tax : It is suggested that there should be a positive provision under the I.T. Act that any transaction involving more than Rs.3,00,000/...
Corporate Law : High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that contradictory defence evidence failed to rebut statutory presu...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashed a ₹65 lakh penalty under Section 271D after finding that no assessment was made for the relevant year and no ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT exceeded jurisdiction by introducing issues not mentioned in the Section 263 show-cause notice. The ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted penalties imposed for alleged cash transactions after holding that the electronic evidence relied upon by the R...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiati...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
Income Tax : In the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in Appendix II, in Form No. 3CD, for serial number 31 and the entries relating thereto the followin...
Fema / RBI : Section 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the requirements under the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended from time to time,...
Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Dinesh Jain has held that Penalty u/s. 271E is leviable if a person repays any loan, otherwise, than in accordance with provisions of section 269T. As per section 269T no person shall repay the loan otherwise, than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft drawn in the name of the person who has made the loan.
Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Casting. During the course of assessment proceedings AO noticed that Assessee has received cash loans on various days aggregating to Rs 8,89,000/- from Shri Ramusingh Badoria, the Director, of the Assessee.
The Assessing Authority having noticed that the assessee-company had accepted share application money in cash from its directors in violation of provisions of section 269SS, imposed penalty under section 271D and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalty order.
By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal specifically when both the appellate authorities have given concurrent findings. The same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein.
Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs) do not fall under and cannot be equated with receipt of ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’ under the provisions of Section 269SS of the IT Act, evidently, no violation of the said Section can be said to have been committed by the assessee to attract penalty u/s 271D.
That argument was not acceptable to the AO and it was held that there was no evidence in support of the contention that the expenditure had actually been incurred directly by those persons. It was held that the assessee had shown the amounts in question as loans/deposits in his books of accounts.
Referring to R.M. Chidambaram Pillai (supra); Kum. A.B. Shanti (supra); Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (supra), Tribunal held that there is no separate identity for the partnership firm and that the partner is entitled to use the funds of the firm and that the assessee acted bonafide and that there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act. We do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and the Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs.
As far as the present case is concerned, except for stating that they had to make payments to the suppliers and the labours, there is hardly any material available on record to show any justification for receipt of cash over and above Rs. 20,000/- during the course of the year. The assessee admits that they are in the line of business of construction where day in and day out cash payments are made to labourers and to suppliers.
In our considered view, in the light of the relationship between the assessee and her father-in-law, the Tribunal has rightly held that the genuineness of the transaction is not disputed, in which, the amount has been paid by the father-in-law for purchase of property and the source had also been disclosed during the assessment proceedings. If there was a genuine and bonafide transaction and the tax payer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to levy penalty.
We have heard rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record. Learned DR contends that ITAT in respect of above years while upholding the deletion of penalty u/s 271-D, has not considered the aspect of each transactions while ascertaining reasonable cause. In our view it is not so in as much as ITAT has consciously considered this aspect at more than one places and has held that AO though agreed that assessee has reasonable cause in mobilizing these deposits in rural and semi-urban areas, was not justified in levying penalty by holding that transactions based reasonable cause has not been spelt out.
