Section 271D - Page 6

‘JAM’ming currency in Real Estate, Jaitley overlooks villagers?

Measures to curb black money have been on the lips of every Finance Minister and Honorable Minister Shri Arun Jaitley is no exception. As we know, Real Estate business is the largest contributor of black money transactions. He trusts on the JAM (Jandhan, Aadhar, Mobile) generation to move away from such dark deals and build […]...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

CIT Vs. Balaji Traders (2008) 303 ITR 312 (Mad)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax.Vs Balaji Traders. (Madras High Court)

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is leviable under section 271D when there has been repeated violations of section 269SS on the ground that the creditors are genuine persons and there was no revenue loss to the Exchequer...

Read More

Penalty Imposable on cash loan from person other than partners

M/s. Soundarya Textiles Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Kerala High Court)

The authorities below as well as the Tribunal, on verification of the materials on record, came to a finding that the audit report and balance sheet of the assessee had shown the outstanding amount as loan received from 12 persons....

Read More

Section 269SS not applies to loan between firm and partners

CIT Vs M/s Muthoot Financiers (Delhi High Court)

Section 269SS would not be violative when money is exchanged inter-se between the partners and partnership firm in spite of the fact that the partnership firm and individual partners are separate assessees. ...

Read More

Share application money cannot be construed as loan or deposit for section 269SS

M/s Eqbal Inn & Hotels Ltd. Vs The JCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)

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....

Read More

No penalty levied on Akhilesh yadav for violation of Sec. 269SS, as reasonable cause was exist

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-5 Vs Akhilesh Kumar Yadav (ITAT Agra)

In the instant case, the AO did not dispute the genuineness of the transaction entered into between the assessee and Samajwadi Party and no addition had been made in this regard. Instead of cash, if the assessee had taken loan through cheque, it would have taken some time for process in clearing. Since the amount was deposited and withdra...

Read More

Sec. 269SS Penalty cannot be imposed if cash loan was taken to meet business needs

DCIT Vs Rupen Das (ITAT Kolkata)

DCIT Vs Rupen Das (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee was engaged in providing security guards to various Government and non-Government organisations and regular payment to the employees was essential to provide better services. ...

Read More

Sec. 269SS Contribution towards share application money received in cash is not loan or deposit

Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Avadh Rubber Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)

Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Avadh Rubber Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) I.T.A. No. 1853/Kol/2008 Dated : 28th May, 2010 Sole dispute is whether the contribution of Abhisek Saraf in cash towards share application money in the sum of Rs. 3 lacs should be construed to be a deposit within the meaning of s. 269SS in order […]...

Read More

No Penalty U/s. 271D for receipt of Share application money in cash

CIT Vs. M/s Speedways Rubber Pvt. Limited (Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh)

The Assessing officer initiated proceedings for alleged violation of section 269SS of the Act in as much as the assessee accepted share application money being Rs.20,000/- in cash. Thereafter, penalty was imposed. On appeal, CIT(A) upheld the stand of the assessee that the amount received...

Read More

Receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit

VLS Foods (P.) Ltd. Vs Additonal Commissioner of Income-tax IT (ITAT Delhi)

In the present case, the alleged amount of Rs. 8.55 lakhs was received by the assessee in cash on account of share application money, penalty under s. 271D cannot be levied because the receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit and hence the impugned receipt of Rs. 8.55 lakhs is not governed by s. 269SS of the Act. We ...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,473)
Company Law (5,377)
Custom Duty (7,627)
DGFT (4,117)
Excise Duty (4,328)
Fema / RBI (3,973)
Finance (4,172)
Income Tax (32,000)
SEBI (3,321)
Service Tax (3,517)

Search Posts by Date

February 2020
« Jan