Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 83 (2.20 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. on 28 January, 2003

Acit, New Delhi vs Sh. Satvinder Singh Washawan, New Delhi on 21 June, 2019

In this case also, as in the above case, a contra entry was passed on 2.4.2007 i.e. in the year under consideration by debiting the account of M/s. Vardaan Fashion and crediting the said amount to S. Avatar Singh. This is also an adjustment entry made on account of rectification of the mistake and therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of section 269SS, and hence penalty u/s 271D is not attracted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 18 May, 2021

In so far as the reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Techno Shares And Stocks Ltd. (supra) is concerned it may only be noted that the said judgement has since been altered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order reported at (2010) 327 ITR 323 (SC). Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the Ground of Appeal No. 1.1 raised by the assessee."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dcit Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs Macrotech Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai on 8 April, 2021

In the present case, admittedly no money was 27 ITA No.1415 & 1416/Mum/2018 M/s. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor to Macrotech Construction P. Ltd., ) transacted other than through banking channels. M/s PACL India Ltd. made certain payments through banking channels to land owners. This payment made on behalf of the assessee was recorded by the assessee in its books by crediting the account of M/s PACL India Ltd. In view of this admitted position, no infringement of Section 269SS of the Act is made out. This Court, in the case of Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. (supra), considered a similar case where a company had paid money to the Government of Delhi for acquisition of a land on behalf of the assessee therein. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271D of the Act for alleged violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act since the books of the assessee reflected the liability on account of the lands acquired on its behalf. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) affirmed the penalty.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajkot Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 3 March, 2011

"4.2 I have carefully considered the penalty order and the submissions made by the Id. AR. As per the facts of this case, the appellant company was incorporated on 18.05.2006. As such, this is the first year of its operation. During the year under consideration, the appellant had executed a development agreement with the developer, M/s Duce Properties & Investment Pvt. Ltd. (subsequently known as M/s Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd.) for developing of residential township at village Rathdhana in Sonepat. Under the said agreement, M/s Duce has provided necessary finances for purchase of land by the appellant company. The payment has been made by M/s Duce to the land-owners (farmers) directly by account payee cheques on behalf of the appellant company for purchase of the said land for the township project. The amount totaling Rs.14,32,57,724/- is shown in the books of the appellant as unsecured loan from M/s Duce for the year ending 31.03.2007. It is argued by the Id. AR that necessary disclosures in this regard have been made in the Balance Sheets of both the appellant company and M/s Duce for the year ending 31.03.2007. It is argued by the Id. AR that the appellant company did not maintain any bank account during the year under consideration and that the payments have been made by M/s Duce directly to the farmers vide account payee cheques and no cash loan whatsoever has been received by the appellant company from M/s Duce and hence section 269SS read with section 271D is not attracted. It is argued that the case is covered directly by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 260.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next