Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (3) (5),, ... vs Ushaben G. Vasjaliya, L/H Sh. ... on 22 February, 2017
cites
Section 271D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 273B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Manoj Lalwani on 22 March, 2002
In the case of CIT vs.
Manoj Lalwani (2003) 260 ITR 590 (Raj), Honble Rajasthan High
Court held that section 273B permits the assessing authority not to
impose a penalty provided under section 271D of a sum equal to
the amount of loan or deposit taken or accepted in spite of the
breach of the provisions of section 269SS, if the assessee or the
person proves before the assessing authority that there was
reasonable cause for not accepting the amount of loan or deposit
by way of account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. The
assessing officer has not appreciated the reasonable cause of the
appellant in the given facts of the case in totality.
Section 274 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
The appellant placed reliance on the decision in case of Hindustan
Steel Limited v. State of Orissa [supra] also requires a specific
reproduction at this stage where the Apex Court has held that,".....
Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Maa Khodiyar Construction on 27 February, 2015
Contention of AR that loans were obtained in emergency to deposit
in bank for obtaining VISA for appellant's son have force and
needs to be appreciated. Also, loans were accepted as genuine in
assessment proceedings after due verification of lenders, hence
there was reasonable cause within the meaning of provisions of
section 273B. Violation of provisions of section 269SS can be
regarded as technical and venial breach, in view of fact that
appellant being old lady not well versed with provisions of law.
Considering conspicuous facts of the case decision of hon.Gujarat
High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maa Khodiyar Construction 365
ITR 474 is relevant which is squarely applicable to facts of the
present case. "Section 269SS of the Act at this stage requires
consideration along with Sections 271D and 273B of the Act. Any
loan or deposit, if, accepted by any person otherwise than by an
account payee cheque or account payee bank draft from any
person exceeding rupees twenty thousand rupees or more.
1