Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Chamundi Granites P. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 25 March, 2000

Income Tax Officer vs Sunil M. Kasliwal on 7 March, 2003

7. The apex Court in the case of Chamundi Granites (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC) has held that the object of introducing Section 269SS was to ensure that taxpayer is not allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money, or if he makes some false entries, he shall not escape by giving false explanation for the same. During search and seizures, unaccounted money is unearthed and the taxpayer would usually give the explanation that he had borrowed or received deposits from his relatives or friends and it is easy for the so-called lender also to manipulate his records to suit the plea of the taxpayer. The main object of Section 269SS was to curb this menace of making false entries in the account books and later giving an explanation for the same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 26 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Dillu Clive Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs Addl. Cit on 27 September, 2001

(a) Constitutional validity of section 269SS was upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sukhdev Rathi v. Union of India (1994) 116 CTR (Guj) 620 : (1995) 211 ITR 157 (Gui) as well as by the Madras High Court in K.R.MV Ponnuswamy Nadar Sons (Firm) v. Union of India (1992) 196 ITR 431 (Mad) and in another case Chamundi Granites (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (1999) 157 CTR (Ker) 128 : (1999) 239 ITR 694 (Ker) and that the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision Kum.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 37 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Bhaumik vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 October, 2002

18. Another authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court is , Assistant Director of Inspection Investigation v. A.B. Shanthi and Chamundi Granites Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore and Anr. The main attack in the said case was against Section 269SS of the Act on the basis that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. In that case, it sought to penalise the borrower alone and not the lender, thus discriminating between them though they formed part of the same transaction. According to this provision, no person was to take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft if the amount was Rs. 20,000/- or more. Section 276DD of the Act provided punishment with imprisonment for a borrower who without a reasonable cause or excuse takes or accept any loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS. It was under these circumstances that it was urged that it discriminated between a borrower and a lender and thus violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court, after considering the relevant provisions of the Act and the legislative intent behind the enactment of Section 269SS of the Act, held, that though the borrower and lender could be said to be equal integral part of the same transaction but when viewed from the angle of tax evasion, they could not be regarded an equals or similarly situated and the provisions seeking to penalise the borrower alone and not the lender was held to be not discriminatory. The Apex Court further re-affirmed the settled position of law that a tax legislation is a policy matter and it is for the Parliament to decide the manner in which legislation should be made.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Aggarwal - Full Document

V.S.Hostel, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax on 13 October, 2008

A. B. Shanthi and Chamundi Granites Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2002), 255 ITR 258 (SC) and Rakesh Kumar Shaw v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2002), 257 ITR 268 (Cal), the assessee pleaded that there was no contravention of the provisions of section 269SS & 269T of the Act and therefore, they were not liable for any penalty u/s 271D & 271E of the Act. However, the Addl. CIT did not accept the submissions of the assessee on the ground the transactions were reported in the statutory Audit Report and the assessee did not establish with reference to each of the transaction that Shri Suryakant R Shah acted as a custodian only, holding the money for brief period, and that the same were deposited !n the hostel's bank account at the earliest opportunity. Accordingly, 3 4 ITA nos.151 & 152/Ahd/2009 the Addl. CIT imposed a penalty of Rs.24,52,740/- & Rs.30,92,911/- u/s 27ID & 271E of the Act respectively.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Bhandari Precision Forgings (P) ... vs Department Of Income Tax

These views were also echoed by Karnataka High Court in the case of Chamundi Granites Pvt. Ltd. v CIT 239 ITR 694. The crux of the decision is that the Page 8 of 10 8 ITA Nos.777 & 778/Bang/2010 law is enacted to ensure prevention of evasion of tax and avoiding of fictitious entries in the books of accounts. 13.2 In the instant case, the transactions are between two identifiable persons and totally genuine and bonafide. The transactions have been accepted by the AO and no additions have been made on this count in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, all entries are genuine and no fictitious entries are involved.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next