Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)
M/S Bhandari Precision Forgings (P) ... vs Department Of Income Tax cites

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

13.4 The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v Idhayam Publications Ltd. 285 ITR 221 has categorically held that transaction which is in the nature of current account and where no interest has been charged for the above transactions, it cannot be stated that the amounts received from the payer are in the nature of loan or deposit. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Madras High Court reads as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 72 - P P Raja - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Canara Housing Development ... on 6 March, 2020

M/s Canara Housing Development Co. v Additional CIT (Bang) in ITA No.1425/Bang/2008 (AY 2005-06) dated 13th February, 2009, the learned jurisdictional ITAT has held that transactions in cash exceeding the prescribed limit Page 6 of 10 6 ITA Nos.777 & 778/Bang/2010 between two sister concerns in current a/c cannot be equated with 'loan' or 'deposit' and hence the provisions of section 269SS/269T are not attracted so as to enable the revenue to levy penalty u/s 271D/271E of I T Act. What is intended to be pointed out here is that, here also the transaction is in current a/c and transaction is more subtler than between two sister concerns, i.e. almost by the same persons "left hand" and "right hand". Hence, on analogy, the provisions of section 269SS/269T is not applicable and therefore consequent penalties levied deserve to be deleted".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Chamundi Granites P. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 25 March, 2000

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.
Karnataka High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 12 - A Bhan - Full Document
1