Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (1.85 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Maheshwari Nirman Udyog on 26 July, 2007
He also
relied on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs
Maheshwari Nirman Udyog (supra) and decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana
8
High Court in the case of C IT vs Saini Medical Store reported in 276 ITR 79
(P&H).
Commr.Of Income Tax,New Delhi vs M/S Eli Lilly & Company (India) P.Ltd on 25 March, 2009
If such situation is examined
from another angle that if the money is accepted as share application money then
the same cannot be construed again as loan or deposit as held by Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in the case of I.P. India (P) Ltd (supra).
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Idhayam Publications Limited on 23 January, 2006
He also submitted that money received in current account can also not
constitute loan or deposits for the purpose of levy of penalt y u/s 271D and in this
regard relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v
Idhayam Publications Ltd (supra).
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949
The Income Tax Act, 1961
D.T.C. vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. on 5 March, 2012
18. There is another aspect of the case i.e. whether the penalt y is mandatory or
if reasonable cause is given, then such penalt y is not leviable. This situation has
been discussed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of C IT v
Sunil Kumar Goel (supra). In that case, the assessee had accepted cash loans on
various dates exceeding Rs. 20,000/- and, therefore, the penalt y u/s 271-E was
levied. When the issue traveled to the Hon'ble High Court, it was stated as under:-
Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) vs Acme Educational Society on 28 July, 2010
The
Hon'ble High Court in this case observed at para 8 that in case of Baidya Nath
Plastic Industries (P) Ltd v K.L. Anand, ITO 230 ITR 572(Delhi), the Ld. single
Judge of this Court pointed out that the distinction between a loan and a deposit is
that in the case of the former it is ordinaril y the dut y of the debtor to seek out the
creditor and to replay the money, according to the agreement, while in the case of
a deposit it is generall y the dut y of the depositor to go to the banker or to the
depositee as the case may be, and made the demand for it. The High Court further
noted that this observation was approved later by Division Bench in the case of
Director of Income Tax (Exemption ) vs ACME Education Societ y 326 ITR
146(Delhi). The Hon'ble High Court further observed that if these tests were
applied then Share Application Money for allotment of shares in a company cannot
be treated as a receipt of loan or deposit.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S.Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners P Ltd on 12 July, 2007
16. This issue also came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Madras High
Court in the case of CIT Vs Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners P. Ltd. 304 ITR 417. In
that case, the assessee had received cash over a period of time as advance towards
allotment of shares from 16 persons without stipulating any time frame towards
return / refund of money without interest in case of non allotment of shares either
full y or partl y. The Court observed that money retained by the company was
neither deposit nor loan, but it was onl y Share Capital Advance. Therefore, penal
provisions u/s 271E was not attracted. The relevant observations are made at para
6, which reads as under:-