Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2002) Tax Publisher (DT) 733 - Hyderabad Tribunal. - Held that ''the active director of the assessee company is clearly not covered by the expression ''any other person'' occurring in Section 269SS of the Act. Further held that ''mere technical breach of provisions, while transactions were held to be genuine do not attract provisions of Section 269SS, therefore, where one of the directors of assessee company brought funds from his personal account whenever assessee was in requirement of funds whether transactions between assessee and director of assessee do not fall within mischief sought to be remedied by the Section as there is no case against assessee that these transactions had anything to do with evasion of tax or concealment of income.'' M/s. Naryanji Spices and Pulses (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT, Central Range, Jaipur

2. CIT vs. Idhayan Publication Ltd. (2006) Tax Publisher (DT) 1251-Madras High Court - Held that :

Amount received by a private company from its Director neither loan nor deposit - since the transaction did not fall within the meaning of loan or advance there was no violation of Section 269SS.

3. CIT vs. Ajana Dyeing & Printing Mills (2003) 264 ITR 505 (Raj) - Held that while levying penalty u/s 271D for violation of provisions of Section 269SS adjustment of Rs. 20,000/- is to be allowed which is permissible u/s 269SS.

2. Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2002) Tax Publisher (DT) 733 - Hyderabad Tribunal. - Held that ''the active director of the assessee company is clearly not covered by the expression ''any other person'' occurring in Section 269SS of the Act. Further held that ''mere technical breach of provisions, while transactions were held to be genuine do not attract provisions of Section 269SS, therefore, where one of the directors of assessee company brought funds from his personal account whenever assessee was in requirement of funds whether transactions between assessee and director of assessee do not fall within mischief sought to be remedied by the Section as there is no case against assessee that these transactions had anything to do with evasion of tax or concealment of income.''

5. CIT vs. Ajana Dyeing & Printing Mills (2003) 264 ITR 505 (Raj) - Held that while levying penalty u/s 271D for violation of provisions of Section 269SS adjustment of Rs. 20,000/- is to be allowed which is permissible u/s 269SS.

6. Sudha Agro & Chemical Industries vs. Addl. CIT (2016) - Tax Publisher (DT) 2783 -( Vishakhapatnam Tribunal ) - Held that ''after taking into consideration of judgement of Raj. High Court in case of Ajanta Dying & Printing Mills held that ''penalty shall be levied after excluding Rs. 20,000/- in each case as permissible u/s 269SS of the Act.