Section 271D - Page 7

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

No Penalty for cash loan to Sister Concerns due to business exigency

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sunil Kumar Goel (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

There is no dispute about the fact, that the instant cash transactions of the respondent-assessee were with the sister concern, and that, these transactions were between the family, and due to business exigency. A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure...

Read More

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

Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog (Rajasthan High Court)

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...

Read More

Sections 269SS have no application in respect of Share Application Money Received in cash

Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited. (Madras High Court)

Q.1. What is the definition of MSME? A.1. The Government of India has enacted the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 in terms of which the definition of micro, small and medium enterprises is as under:(a) Enterprises engaged in the manufacture or production, processing or preservation of goods as specified b...

Read More

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

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (Rajasthan High Court)

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...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,812)
Company Law (6,177)
Custom Duty (7,800)
DGFT (4,246)
Excise Duty (4,368)
Fema / RBI (4,247)
Finance (4,460)
Income Tax (33,501)
SEBI (3,535)
Service Tax (3,564)

Search Posts by Date

July 2020