Sec 269ss

This query is : Resolved 
 


Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 20 September 2011

Sir, can any one give me some case laws in support of the assessee, in whose books some amount is credited as cash, penalty u/s271e is ordered

Regards


C A S.S.Agarwal, M.Com.,LL.B, (Expert)
23 September 2011


2011 - TMI - 205319 - ITAT, PUNE

Shramjivi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Versus Addl. CIT

Dated: 08-06-2011

Penalty - In the letter dt. 25th March 2004, the CBDT has advised that penalties u/s. 271-D and 271-E for violation of the provisions of Section 269-SS and 269-T, respectively, should not be indiscriminately imposed - it remained the allegation of th......

2
2010 - TMI - 202246 - Chhattisgarh High Court

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus. Preeti Fuels and Flames P. Ltd.

Dated: 25-11-2010

Penalty – Acceptance of deposit in cash – deposit by directors of company – Finding that transaction genuine and default technical – Part of amount received through banking channels from directors and promoters not in violation of section 269SS – Pen......

3
2010 - TMI - 205770 - ITAT, Kolkata

DCIT Versus Rupen Das

Dated: 12-11-2010

Acceptance of loan in cash - Penalty u/s 271D - Contravention of the provisions of section 269SS - Since, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 7,00,000 on the assessee u/s 271D of the Act on the ground that the assessee had contravened the pr......

4
2010 - TMI - 201555 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sh. Surendra Singh Khurana, Prop. M/s Jai Bharat Motor Transport Col

Dated: 05-10-2010

Acceptance of loan in cash - amount has been found deposited in cash in the books of account - assessing authority was of the view that section 269 SS of the Act was flouted - penalty under section 271D of the Act has been levied to the extent - Asse......

5
2010 - TMI - 204543 - ITAT, KOLKATA

Income-tax Officer, Wd-7(1) Versus Avadh Rubber Ltd.

Dated: 28-05-2010

Penalty u/s 271D - Treatment of share application money as Deposit - The object of introducing section 269SS is to ensure that a taxpayer is not allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money, or if he makes some false entries, he shal......

6
2010 - TMI - 205768 - ITAT HYDERABAD

The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT

Dated: 26-02-2010

Application of Section 269SS or 269T to the co-operative society - Penalty for contravention - reasonable cause - assessee is a multi state Co-operative Society engaged in the activity of accepting deposits from its members and redeploying the funds ......

7
2009 - TMI - 204512 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A

Bhikhabhai Dhanjibhai Patel. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

Dated: 20-11-2009

Penalties under s. 271D and s. 271E - The AO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271D on the ground that there was a contravention of s. 269SS of the Act in as much as the assessee took a loan in cash in a sum exceeding Rs. 20,000 - The assessee w......

8
2009 - TMI - 77679 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Speedways Rubber Pvt. Limited

Dated: 22-10-2009

Penalty- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case (having violated the provision of section 269SS of the Act) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income-tax Act......

9
2009 - TMI - 34951 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER Versus KAILASH CHANDRA DEEPAK KUMAR

Dated: 16-07-2009

Advance – amount received otherwise than by way of account payee cheque or bank draft – held that - assessing authority had added Rs. 1,00,000 which is the same amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and the Commissioner of Inc......

10
2008 - TMI - 65926 - ITAT HYDERABAD

Hamarashehar Company P. Limited. Versus Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

Dated: 12-09-2008

Penalty ......

11
2008 - TMI - 75290 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus MADHUKAR B. PAWAR

Dated: 25-06-2008

Penalty under section 271D on ground that loan in cash exceeding prescribed limit - The assessee had taken from seven persons a loan of Rs. 20,000 each. This is a finding of fact and not in dispute - Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 57......


Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 23 September 2011

Thank you sie



You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :






× Online Coaching My Enrolled Courses
Articles Forum News Experts Exams Share Files Income Tax Accounts Career Corporate Law Service Tax Video Judgements Rewards Top Members Events Albums Find Friends Featured Feed Scorecard Bookmarks Mock Test Poll Notification Knowledge Finder Coaching Institutes Trainee Corner Jobs
close x
  SHARE THIS