Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (2.86 seconds)
Documents citing Income Tax Officer vs Sunil M. Kasliwal on 7 March, 2003

Shri Narayan Ram Chhaba vs The I.T.O. [Alongwith Ita No. ... on 27 January, 2005

Keeping into consideration the common control of funds of HUF and his wife with the assessee, the facts of the case are found on all fours with the case of Sunil M. Kasliwal [supra] in which both the ld. Members agreed that penalty Under Section 271D was not exigible in respect of loans accepted by the assessee from his wife and his HUF in violation of provisions of Section 269S5. Hence the penalty is not maintainable even on this count.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 20 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Navin Kumar vs Jt. Cit on 17 November, 2005

"14. The assessee may be exonerated from the rigour of penalty under section 271D of the Act, provided it is established that there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the prescription of section 269SS of the Act. The mandate given under section 269SS of the Act is clear. Any departure from the said mandate invites penalty as is envisaged under section 271D of the Act. It is clearly laid down in the section that no person shall after 30-6-1984 take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, if the amount of loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan, or deposit i5 Rs. 20, 000 or more, This panoply of law was brought on the statute to counter the tax evasion. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that simply the transaction was genuine, so section 269SS of the Act is not applicable. One cannot accept such proposition of law. There is no ambiguity in the language of the provision. As such, there is no need to apply the purposive theory of interpretation. Subject to the existence of mitigating circumstances penalty cannot be deleted. The assessee must prove beyond the shadow of doubt that there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the conditions contained in section 269SS. Circumstances under which the cash was accepted must be explained. Unfortunately, no cogent material was produced in that direction. The exigency was stated to be the requirement of machine. How urgent that requirement was is not known. The machine was not purchased soon after taking the loan. This indicates that the assessee could have complied with the requirements of section 269SS of the Act, without much difficulty. It is the duty of every citizen to respect law. Majesty of law is to be maintained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Navin Kumar & Ashu Bagla vs Jt. Cit on 17 November, 2005

"14. The assessee may be exonerated from the rigour of penalty under section 271D of the Act, provided it is established that there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the prescription of section 269SS of the Act. The mandate given under section 269SS of the Act is clear. Any departure from the said mandate invites penalty as is envisaged under section 271D of the Act. It is clearly laid down in the section that no person shall after 30-6-1984 take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account-payee cheque or account-payee bank draft, if the amount of loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan or deposit is Rs. 20,000 or more. This panoply of law was brought on the statute to counter the tax evasion. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that simply the transaction was genuine, so section 269SS of the Act is not applicable. One cannot accept such proposition of law. There is no ambiguity in the language of the provision. As such, there is no need to apply the purposive theory of interpretation. Subject to the existence of mitigating circumstances penalty cannot be deleted. The assessee must prove beyond the shadow of doubt that there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the conditions contained in section 269SS. Circumstances under which the cash was accepted must be explained. Unfortunately, no cogent material was produced in that direction. The exigency was stated to be the requirement of machine. How urgent that requirement was is not known. The machine was not purchased soon after taking the loan. This indicates that the assessee could have complied with the requirements of section 269SS of the Act, without much difficulty. It is the duty of every citizen to respect law. Majesty of law is to be maintained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Navin Kumar S/O Shri Sohan Lal vs The Jt. C.I.T. [Alongwith I.T.A. Nos. ... on 16 May, 2005

14. The assessee may be exonerated from the rigour of penalty u/s 271D of the Act, provided it is established that there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the prescription of Section 269SS of the Act. The mandate given u/s 269SS of the Act is clear. Any departure from the said mandate invites penalty as is envisaged u/s 271D of the Act. It is clearly laid down in the section that no person shall after 30/06/1984 take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, if the amount of loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan or deposit is Rs. 20,000/- or more. This panoply of few was brought on the statute to counter the tax evasion. Therefore, it is hot sufficient to say that simply the transaction was genuine, so Section 269SS of the Act is not applicable. One cannot accept such proposition of law. There is no ambiguity in the language of the provision. As such, there is no need to apply the purposive theory of interpretation. Subject to the existence of mitigating circumstances penalty cannot be deleted. The assessee must prove beyond the shadow of doubt that there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the conditions contained in Section 269SS. Circumstances under which the cash was accepted must be explained. Unfortunately, no cogent material was produced in that direction. The exigency was stated to be the requirement of machine. How urgent that requirement was is not known. The machine was not purchased soon after taking the loan. This indicates that the assessee could have complied with the requirements of Section 269SS of the Act, without much difficulty. It is the duty of every citizen to respect few. Majesty of law is to be maintained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narayan Ram Chhaba vs Ito, Ward-I, Nagaur on 13 July, 2005

Keeping into consideration the common control of funds of HUF and his wife with the assessee, the facts of the case are found on all fours with the case of Sunil M Kasliwal (supra) in which both the learned Members agreed that penalty under section 271D was not exigible in respect of loans accepted by the assessee from his wife and his HUF in violation of provisions of section 269SS. Hence the penalty is not maintainable even on this count.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Virambhai Ramabhai Patel, Himatnagar vs Assessee on 13 February, 2013

(iii) As has been held in the case of Sunil M. Kalsiwal (supra) acceptance of loan by Individual from his HUF of which the assessee is the Karta, it does not warrant the imposition of penalty because there is common control of funds with the assessee. When one person acts in different capacities, it can be safely said that the it is deposit from self to self or else from one pocket to another.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Nandhi Dhall Mills vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 February, 2015

 The assessee may be exonerated from the rigour of penalty under Section 271D, provided it is established that there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the prescription of Section 269SS. The mandate given under Section 269SS is clear. Any departure from the said mandate invites penalty as is envisaged under Section 271D. It is clearly laid down in the section that no person shall after 30-6-1984 take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by any account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, if the amount of loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan or deposit is Rs.20,000 or more. This panoply of law was brought on the statute to counter the tax evasion. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that simply the transaction was genuine, so Section 269SS is not applicable. One cannot accept such proposition of law. There is no ambiguity in the language of the provision. As such, there is no need to apply the purposive theory of interpretation. Subject to the existence of mitigating circumstances penalty cannot be deleted. The assessee must prove beyond the shadow of doubt that there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the conditions contained in section 269SS. Circumstances under which the cash was accepted must be explained. Unfortunately, no cogent material was produced in that direction."
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - R Sudhakar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next