Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.37 seconds)Section 271D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 269T in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. on 28 January, 2003
"The issue in question is covered by decision of this
Court dated 20.11.2014 in ITA No.33/2002 titled
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ruchika
Commercials and Investment Pvt.Ltd. This decision
follows two earlier decisions of this Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Noida Toll Bridge
Co.Ltd.
Section 273B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) on 23 January, 2007
"6.10 Entry dated 14.11.2007 of Rs.25,00,000/- in
the name of M/s Dewana Dairy : The facts in this regard
are that M/s Vardaan Fashion, a partnership firm in
which the appellant was a partner, paid Rs.25,00,000/-
vide an account payee cheque no.498989 dated
14.11.2007 to M/s Dewana Dairy on behalf of the
appellant. These transactions were business
transactions and to prove it the appellant had filed copy
of account of M/s Vardaan Fashion and M/s Dewana
29 ITA-2253/D/2013 &
5 others
Dairy in the books of the appellant and the ledger
account of the appellant in the books of M/s Vardaan
Fashion. Under the Indian Partnership Act, the
partnership firm is not a juristic person and it works
through its partners. Any payment made by the firm
amounts to the payment made by the partner. Since,
the partner and his partnership firm is one and the
same person in the eye of law, there is no legality in
making the payment by the firm on behalf of his
partner. Hence, the provisions of section 269T do not
apply to the transaction in question. The AR of the
appellant in support of his case relied on the judgments
of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT
vs. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (2008) 304 ITR 172
and of the ITAT A-Bench Ahmedabad in the case of
Shrepak Enterprises vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Income-tax (1998) 60 TTJ 199. Even otherwise, there
was no contravention of the provisions of section 269T
as the repayment was made only through an account
payee cheque.
Income Tax Officer vs Tarlochan Singh on 16 December, 2002
60. After considering the facts of the case and the arguments of both
the sides, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A).
Smt. Nirupama Wadhawan is the wife of the assessee who had some
surplus cash which she gave to the assessee because the assessee and
his wife intended to jointly purchase a house property. Smt. Nirupama
Wadhawan had given the surplus cash available with her for the
purpose of purchase of such house property. However, when the deal
for purchase of the house property could not be materialized, the said
amount was refunded to her through cheque. We find that the similar
issue was considered by ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of ITO Vs.
Tarlochan Singh - [2003] 128 Taxman 20 (Mag.). In the said case, the
husband had taken the cash of `70,000/- from his wife for the purpose
of investment in the acquisition of immovable property. The Assessing
Officer had levied the penalty under Section 271D which was cancelled
by the ITAT holding as under :-