Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Section 271D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Pratibha Syntex Itd. on 16 June, 1998
In the case of CIT vs. Idhyam
Publications ITD 285 ITR 221( Hon'ble Madras High Court) it is held that
the deposit and withdrawal of the money from the current account could not
be considered as loan or advance. We find that facts of the case of the
assessee are entirely different as in both the loan accounts there were only
credit transaction on obtaining loan and there was no debit transaction.
Cit vs Natvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh on 25 February, 2005
In
the case of CIT vs. Natwarlal Purshottamdas Parekh 303 ITR 5 (Hon'ble
High Court of Gujarat), in this case transaction with the family members on
maturity of NSC were based on mere book entry and no cash amount was
involved. However, the facts of the case of the assessee are entirely
different wherein all the transactions of loan were based on cash basis.
Section 278D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 278E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Assessee on 20 January, 2016
In the
case of Hindustan Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT vide ITA No.
3387/Del/2014 dated 20-10-2016 in this case it was held that no penalty can
be imposed u/s. 278D and 278E because the account was in the nature of
current account. However, facts of the case of the assessee are entirely
different as there was only cash receipt and was made on different dates
from the directors of the assessee company.
1