TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty of ₹ 10,80,000/- imposed u/s 271D of the IT Act for violating the provisions of Section 269SS. 2. The ld. DR initiating his arguments submitted the brief facts that In the instant case penalty order u/s 271 D was passed on 30.4.2010 imposing a penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res was allotted by the assessee company against above mentioned share application money received. As such ₹ 10,80,000/- was imposed as penalty u/s 271D accepting the deposit in the form of share application money above specified limit as prescribed in section 269SS. Mute question involved in the present case is whether share application money received in cash comes under the definition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee company as deposit on behalf of the subscriber. Hence considering the facts of the present case and relying on the judgement of Hon ble Jharkhand High Court (Supra), share application money received during the year in cash above the specified limit is a deposit within the meaning of section 269SS. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee respondent perused the order of the ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 271D is deleted. 4. We have heard the ld. DR and carefully perused the material available on record. On careful perusal of the orders of the authorities below we do find that the facts as brought on record by the AO did not require the visit of penalty provision u/s 271D of the Act as being dealt with by the ld. CIT(A) in an elaborate manner, in so far as, share application money cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
