2016 (2) TMI 238 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
DCIT, Circle-2 (1) , Vijayawada Versus Sri Tirumalaraju Trinadha Raju
Penalty u/s 271D - whether the loan accepted by the assessee is a loan or deposit within the meaning of sec. 269SS - Held that - Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice to levy penalty under sec. 271E of the Act, but finally levied penalty under sec. 271D of the Act. Sec. 271E deals with levy of penalty for violation of the provisions of sec. 269TT of the Act. In the present case on hand, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty under sec. .....
2015 (12) TMI 553 - ITAT MUMBAI
Shri Martin Alex Correa Versus Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–24 (4) , Bandra (E) , Mumbai
Penalty under section 271D - Held that - The assessee has tried to wriggle out from rigours of sections 269SS and 271D of the Act by contending that such entries in the Balance Sheet and books of account are as a result of mistake committed by the Accountant but, in our view, such plea of the assessee is not acceptable as it is not a bona fide plea. Though the assessee has made an endavour to project the loan taken as amount received as a trustee.....
2015 (11) TMI 804 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Versus Amar Nath
Penalty u/s 271D - whether there was reasonable cause to accept the said loan in cash, or some bonafide reason due to which the assessee did not obtain the loan in accordance with section 269SS? - ITAT delted the penalty - Held that - The assessee is a wholesale dealer of fast food goods, manufactured or marketed by various agencies and companies of national repute/Multi National Companies. For clearance of certain cheques, which stood issued in .....
2015 (10) TMI 2238 - ITAT DELHI
Nav-Yug Sewing Machine Co. Ltd. Versus Addl. C.I.T., Range-13, New Delhi
Penalty u/s. 271D - Held that - only those loans and deposits are covered by section 269SS where funds/money are transferred. We, therefore, are of the opinion that where the loans are recorded by merely passing adjustment entries or journal entries are outside the scope of section 269SS of the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty against the assessee on this count. - Decided in favour of assessee.
2015 (12) TMI 1074 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of income Tax, Patiala Versus M/s Eqbal Inn & Hotels Limited
Penalties under section 271D - violation of Sections 269SS - ITAT deleted penalty - Held that - The amount received by the assessee towards share application money would not fall under loan or deposit under section 269SS of the Act. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271D of the Act was not leviable. The Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
2015 (8) TMI 992 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Agra Versus Smt. Dimpal Yadav, Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Etawah
Penalty under Section 271D - violation of provisions of Section 269SS - assessee filed her reply stating that since she did not had the requisite funds at that point of time and the funds were urgently required for conversion of the property, a loan was taken from the Samajwadi Party, which was deposited in her account and, subsequently, the loan was paid back to the Samajwadi Party - ITAT deleted penalty - Held that - Even though the assessee ha.....
2015 (10) TMI 321 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s Khizaria Leathers Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range III, Chennai
Levy of penalty under Section 271D - Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act were attracted to the transactions under consideration with a view to levy penalty under Section 271D of the Act? - whether the exercise of discretion to find out the existence or nonexistence of a reasonable cause was properly explained by the authorities or not? - Held that - It is true that certain amount of discre.....
2015 (8) TMI 1214 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Grihalakshmi Vision Versus The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
Penalty levied u/s 271D and 271E - cash loans taken by the assessee in contravention of 261SS - Tribunal was correct in holding that the orders imposing penalty under Section 271D and E were passed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) and whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the findings? - Held that - The only case of the assessee is that if the period of limitation prescribed in Section 271(1)(c) is recko.....
2015 (8) TMI 663 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad Versus Shri Vishwendra B. Panwar
Penalty levied u/s 271D - violation of provisions of section 269SS - Tribunal deleted penalty levy - Low tax effect - Held that - The Central Board for Direct Tax (CBDT) has issued Instruction No.5 of 2014 and in line with its earlier Instruction No.3 of 2011 directing the Revenue not to file appeals to the High Court from the order of the Tribunal when the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lakhs. This Court in CIT vs. Vijaya V. Kavekar 2013 (2).....
2015 (8) TMI 1153 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Mr. Ch. Govardhan Naidu, Prodduturu. Versus DCIT, Central Circle-1 (2) , Hyderabad.
Revision u/s 263 - errors in the orders passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 153A for all the five years - agricultural income was accepted by the A.O. without making necessary enquiries - Held that - It is observed that in the common questionnaire issued by the A.O. on 30th July, 2012 for all the five years under consideration, the assessee vide point No.43 was required by the A.O. to furnish details of agricultural income a.....
2015 (12) TMI 1363 - ITAT MUMBAI
Smt. Parin K. Rajwani Versus JCIT, Range 19 (3) , Mumbai
Penalty order u/s 271D - Bar of limitation for imposing penalties - Held that - The original assessment order had been passed on 30.11.2010 on which date the AO proposed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271D had been initiated. The notice u/s 271(D) was also issued on the said date. The penalty order u/s 271D has been passed on 08.06.2011. The relevant financial year during which the assessment order was completed ends on 31.03.2011. The perio.....
2015 (7) TMI 331 - ITAT PUNE
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2, Solapur Versus Kailaswasi Sambhajirao Garad Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Penalty levied u/s. 271D and 271E - assessee accepted the cash deposits and repaid the same in cash in violation of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T - CIT(A) deleted the penalty levy - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the assessee accepted cash loan of ₹ 7,73,000/- and has repaid the same in cash to the lenders. Thus, the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. For the violations of afores.....
2015 (7) TMI 326 - ITAT PUNE
Shri Prakash Harinarayan Mantri Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 1, Aurangabad
Levy of penalty under section 271D - violation of the provisions of section 269SS - Held that - In the instant case the assessee was categorically denying from the very beginning regarding acceptance of such cash loan from Shri K.N. Mutha and since there is no direct evidence to substantiate that the assessee has in-fact accepted the said cash loan and since no statement was recorded from either of the parties, therefore, following the decision o.....
2015 (11) TMI 1192 - ITAT DELHI
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Mahagun Technologies Pvt Ltd
Penalty imposed u/s 271D - violation of the provisions of section 269SS - CIT(A) deleted penalty - Held that - The account of the associate concern M/s Mahagun Developers Ltd. was credited by the assessee by passing a journal entry and it did not involve acceptance of any loan or deposit or money. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act were not applicable and the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271D of the Act was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
2015 (7) TMI 201 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Shri Venkateswara Reddy Kasireddy Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 9 (3) Hyderabad
Penalty u/s 271D - violating the provisions of section 269SS - Held that - The confirmation letter from the creditor has been produced. The assessee brought out the need for taking loan in cash by giving reason that financial loss would be incurred if the deal had not been concluded immediately and also the flat chosen by him could not be available later. The ld Counsel for the assessee explained as to what constituted reasonable cause and hence .....