Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

INCOME-TAX OFFICER Versus SUNDER SYNTHETICS P. LTD.

2015 (11) TMI 918 - ITAT HYDERABAD

Penalty under section 271D - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that:- It is observed that although there are some case-law including the decision of Bhalotia Engineering Works P. Ltd. v. CIT [2004 (8) TMI 66 - JHARKHAND High Court] which are in favour of the Revenue, taking a view that the share application money partakes the character of loan or deposit, there are various other case law as cited by the assessee before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), wherein a view in favour of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er impugned order cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271D is, therefore, upheld and this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I. T. A. No. 314 /Hyd/ 2015 - Dated:- 1-7-2015 - P. M. JAGTAP (Accountant Member) Bandi Ramakrishna for the appellant. Sanjay Kumar for the respondent. ORDER 1. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Hyderabad dated January 9, 2015, whereby he canc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eration. As noted by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee-company had received an amount of ₹ 35 lakhs from its directors towards share application money in cash. According to the Assessing Officer, the said amount received by the assessee being in cash was violative of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, and therefore, the assessee-company was liable to pay penalty under section 271D of the Act. He therefore, initiated penalty proceed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in it was held that share application money partakes the character of deposit, since it is repayable in specie on refusal to allot shares. Accordingly, relying on the decision of the hon'ble Jharkand High Court in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works P. Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dhanji R. Zalte v. Asst. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 204 (Bom), a penalty of ₹ 35 lakhs was imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271D. 3. The pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n this issue, specifically citing the following : (a) CIT v. Alpex Exports P. Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 297 (Delhi) ; (b) CIT v. I. P. India P. Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 353 (Delhi) ; (c) CIT v. Speedways Rubber P. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 31 (P&H) ; (d) ITO v. Avadh Rubber Ltd. [2011] 43 SOT 309 (Kolkata) ; (e) Bhikhabhai Dhanjibhai Patel v. Asst. CIT [2010] 127 TTJ 479 (Ahd); Page No : 0621 (f) CIT v. Lakshmi Trust Co. [2008] 303 ITR 99 (Mad) ; (g) CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 221 (Mad) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version