Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (5) TMI 746 - HC - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount received as share application money and its repayment violated Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby attracting penalties u/s 271D and 271E.

Summary:

Issue 1: Violation of Sections 269SS and 269T
The core issue in this appeal was whether the share application money received and repaid by the respondent/assessee in amounts exceeding Rs. 20,000/- without using an account payee cheque or bank draft constituted a violation of Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby attracting penalties u/s 271D and 271E.

Relevant Provisions and Definitions:
Sections 269SS and 269T prohibit the acceptance and repayment of loans or deposits exceeding Rs. 20,000/- otherwise than by an account payee cheque or bank draft. Penalties for violations are prescribed u/s 271D and 271E. The definitions of "loan" and "deposit" were crucial, with Section 269T explaining that these terms refer to money repayable after notice or a period.

Findings and Discussion:
The court examined the definitions of "loan" and "deposit" from various dictionaries and judicial precedents, noting that these terms imply a liability to return the money under certain conditions. The court concluded that share application money does not fit these definitions as it is intended for participation in the company's capital and is neither repayable after notice nor after a period.

Conclusion:
Since share application money is neither a loan nor a deposit, Sections 269SS and 269T do not apply. Consequently, no penalties u/s 271D or 271E could be imposed. The court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no illegality in its order and dismissed the appeal, answering the substantial question of law in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates