• Follow
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 269SS

Home Case Index Income Tax Sections List
Cases for Section: 269SS
Showing 1 to 15 of 235 Records

2016 (4) TMI 128 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Mr. Hemant Rajnikant Shroff Versus The Addl. CIT, Range-2, Surat

Penalty levied u/s 271D - whether the order is time barred - Held that - The last date before which the penalty order u/s 271D could have been passed by the Revenue was 31.03.2014 and the date of passing the order u/s 271D of the Act is 28.03.2014, which is well within the time limit prescribed under the provisions of Section 275(1)(a) of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the order u/s 271D is not time-barred and is valid. We, therefore, dismiss first ground of the appeal of the assessee. - Section 269SS of the Act are squarely applicable on the cash loan transactions made by the as ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 1090 - ITAT JAIPUR

The ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur Versus Shri Akshay Kumar

Penalty u/s 271D - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the father of the assessee and his aunti and cousin have entered into an agreement with one Nathu Lal for sale of land and on account of sale of land, a sum of ₹ 19,50,000/- was received in cash. It is also an admitted fact that the amount of ₹ 19.50 lakhs was deposited by the assessee in his bank account as the father of the assessee was not having the PAN. Moreover, the said amount was not accepted by the banker of the father. The amount was thereafter deposited in the bank account on 16.12.2008 by the assessee. - Immed ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 902 - ITAT CHANDIGARH

M/s Valley Extraction Pvt. Ltd. Versus The JCIT, Range, Shimla

Penalty levied u/s 271D - volition of sec 269SS - Held that - It is an admitted fact that Sh. Tejinder Singh had made the deposits, though in cash. there is no violation of the provisions of sec. 269SS of the Act, in as much as the transactions have duly been recorded in the accounts of the company. There is no dispute that since the company was in urgent need of money, considering the urgency, Sh Tejinder Singh, one of the directors of the company introduced the money with the assessee company. As we have already observed herein above that the object of introducing sec. 269SS is to ensure tha ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 303 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Kalpesh K. Kinariwala Versus Addl. CIT-Range-3, Surat

Penalty order u/s 271D - Held that - The case of the assessee squarely falls under the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and a clear contravention has been made by the assessee of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act as the assessee has accepted loan and was deposited which exceeded ₹ 20,000/- i.e. ₹ 76,000/- otherwise by account payee cheque or draft or by electronic transfer through bank account during the year. It is pertinent to note that assessee is based at Surat and the sister concern from whom loan was taken is also based in Surat and there was no reason for taki ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 378 - ITAT CHANDIGARH

M/s Chawla Chemtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Joint CIT, Gobindgarh

Penalty u/s 271D - whether there was a reasonable cause in accepting the deposits in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act? - Held that - The cash transactions of the assessee were with the directors and share holders of the company due to business expediency. Nobody has doubted the genuineness of the transactions. In my opinion, the assessee has proved throughout without any shadow of doubt that the transactions are genuine and there is a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act, which provides that no penalty shall be imposed on person or assessee as t ....... - .......

2016 (3) TMI 242 - ITAT HYDERABAD

Shri B. Venkateswarlu Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Range 9, Hyderabad

Penalty under S.271D - Appellant made cash borrowings from near relatives who are staying in village, having agricultural incomes and not having bank accounts - Held that - Turning to the circumstances under which loans had to be obtained in cash, we find that as far as Shri Kondiah and Smt.Venkata Subbamma are concerned, in the absence of any evidence brought on record to controvert the claim of the assessee that they are agriculturists living in a village, having no banking facilities, the cause shown by the assessee for making the borrowals in question from them in cash, has to be accepted ....... - .......


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. 271E for violation of sec. 269TT of the Act, but levied penalty under sec. 271D for violation of the provisions of sec. 269SS. From this conduct of th ....... - .......

2015 (12) TMI 553 - ITAT MUMBAI

Shri Martin Alex Correa Versus Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax Rangeľ24 (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 by virtue of power of attorney but, in our view, such plea of the assessee is on thin ground. Had it been a case of holding the money of the lady in ....... - .......


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 advance, as per market procedure, money had to be arranged to avoid prosecution under various statutes. It was also to save the reputation and goodwil ....... - .......

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. CI ....... - .......


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 w ....... - .......


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 had taken a loan in cash, nonetheless, the loan transaction was a genuine transaction and was routed through the bank account of the assessee which clea ....... - .......

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 discretion is vested in the assessing officer as well as the appellate authority and the Tribunal to choose not to impose penalty if the assessee proves tha ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 1085 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Parayil Balan Nair Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D - Held that - The fact that ₹ 15,00,000/- was received from Sri.K.C.Basheer on behalf of the assessee is undisputed, although the receipt of the amount or its utilisation are not reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee. Initially in his letter dated 13.12.2010, Sri.K.C.Basheer himself had confirmed that the payment was by way of a loan. It was on that basis the assessee was issued notice dated 24.02.2011. In his reply to the said notice the assessee had stated that he had not accepted any loan or deposit from anybody and that ₹ 15,00,000/- received on hi ....... - .......

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 reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitte ....... - .......


what is new what is new

Latest Updates




More Options


|| About us || Contact us || Feed Back || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Website