Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Njp Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Assessee cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Idhayam Publications Limited on 23 January, 2006

In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Idhayam Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Madras), their lordships dismissing the appeal of the revenue held that the transaction between the assessee and the director was not a loan or deposit and it was only a current account in nature and no interest was being charged for the transactions made under the account, the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal which deleted the penalty.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 72 - P P Raja - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Thirumagal Mills Ltd. Additional ... on 26 November, 1976

CIT, CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd., CIT vs. Shri Ambica Flour Mills Corporation & CIT vs. Sriniwas Joshi (supra), the issue was whether current account transactions with sister concerns/urgent payments to sister concerns would fall within the meaning of loans or advances for the purpose of section 269SS/269T. As already discussed above, in the case of the appellant the expenses incurred by the director on behalf of the appellant company were loan by the director to the appellant and not current account transactions. Neither was there any urgency to return the amount in cash to the director.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Eastern Investments Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 4 May, 1951

In the case of Supreme Investments vs Jt.CIT in ITA NO.76/Bang/2006 dt. 3rd Aug. 2007, for the asstt.yr. 2001-02, the Bangalore Bench did not record a definite conclusion that transactions between sister concerns are not hit by s. 269T, though the penalty was cancelled on other grounds. For the limited purpose of imposing penalty under s. 271E, it is perhaps enough to see whether the assessee could have bona fide belief that transactions with sister concerns involving cash were not hit by s. 269T. Since there is a difference of opinion on this point between two orders of the Tribunal, the assessee was perhaps justified in believing that it is stated that the assessee's bona fide belief constitutes reasonable cause for the violation of s. 269T r/w s. 273B. Similarly, if the assessee had bona fide belief that cash transactions in a current account are not hit by s. 269T, which belief is vindicated by the judgment of the Madras High Court, cited supra, even that can be considered as reasonable cause under s. 273B and on that ground also the penalty is liable to be cancelled.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 340 - V Bose - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Kasi Credit Corporation on 26 October, 2005

In the case of Narayan Ram Chhaba vs. ITO (supra), the assessee was an agriculturist who took cash loans from his wife and HUF and in the case of CIT vs Kasi Corporation & Anr.(supra), the assessee was in the business of accepting deposits from the public and in some of the cases repaid them in cash on account of closure of banking hours, payments to lady members who did not have bank accounts, etc. The appellant is not an agriculturist and has not made the repayment of loan in cash for any such urgent reasons and so the facts of the appellant's case are totally different. As per the other judicial pronouncements relied upon the appellant, penalty u/s 2710/271 E is not attracted when there is reasonable cause for giving or returning loans in cash or the appellant holds a bona-fide belief that such payments can be made. In the case of the appellant it cannot be said that there was any reasonable cause for return of the loan in cash, since as discussed earlier, the bank account of the appellant had already opened by the time the return of loan was made. The Addl.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - P D Premkumar - Full Document
1