Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1518 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271D - the company has accepted cash loan / cash deposits from Director - repayment of the same was also made in cash, which is in violation of the provisions of section 269SS as well as section 269T of the I. T. Act, 1961 - Held that: - the penalty is not leviable in the matter - Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in the fresh assessment order there was no satisfaction recorded regarding penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The Assessing Officer did not record any satisfaction regarding penalty proceedings under section 271D of the I. T. Act in the assessment order. Though in that order the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|