Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Section 271E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 269SS in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Saini Medical Store on 22 February, 2005
4.8 The AR has also relied on the case of CIT V. Saini Medical Store
[2005] 277 ITR 420(P& H.) wherein it was held that if there was a
reasonable cause then penalty under section 269T could not be levied. It
has already been discussed earlier in this order that there was no
reasonable cause for the assessee to have made the repayment in cash.
In view of the above the ratio of the above decision does not apply to the
instant case.
Income-Tax Officer vs Narsing Ram Ashok Kumar on 15 March, 1993
Similar
views were expressed in the aforesaid decision in Narsingh Ram Ashok
Kumar(supra) referred to by the ld. CIT(A).Thus, plea of the ld. AR regarding
6 ITA no.3173/Ahd/2010
genuineness of the transactions while repayment of loan in cash is not tenable in
the context of levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act.
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 273B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Coronation Flour ... on 7 June, 2016
4.4 The AR has relied on the case of CIT V. Shri Ambica Flour Mills
Corp. [2008] 6 DTR (GUJ) 169 wherein the Gujarat High Court held that -
where transactions were between sister concerns the default was only
venial in nature and no interference was called for in the orders of the
Tribunal which deleted the penalty under section 271 D and section 271 E.
In that case, it was to be noted that the managing partner was common to
all the sister concerns and it was held that the transactions are not in the
4 ITA no.3173/Ahd/2010
nature of deposits or loans. In the instant case however there is no such
relation between the two entities. The appellant is an individual and the
persons to whom the payment has been made is also an individual. The
appellant has no control over the affairs of Meenaben P. Shah. In view of
the above the ratio of the said decision does not apply to the instant case.