9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parate orders, dated 25.8.2009 and 26.8.2009 of the CIT (A)-VII, Mumbai for the assessment year 2005-06. Since in both the appeals, facts are similar, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In this appeal, the assessee s grievance is against CIT(A) s confirmation of penalty of ₹ 5,29,83,400 levied by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-6 under section 271E of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares and credited the account of the company. Accordingly, the assessee debited the account of Indsec. It was also submitted that in the case of the above named clients for earlier years and in the case of group companies, the Tribunal also on similar facts, levied the penalty under section 271E. In view of this, before the AO, the assessee pleaded to drop the penalty proceedings. After conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 22.3.2005. Relying on the aforesaid decision, he submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 5. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we find that the payment is only by way of journal entry. The repayment has been made through account payee cheque and the transaction is with Baffin Engineering Projects Ltd. of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e penalty is levied on the ground that the assessee accepted loans from M/s. Netscape Softwae P. ltd., and Goldfish Computer Pvt Ltd., amounting to ₹ 1,72,83,327 and ₹ 1,72,30,300, respectively other than by account payee cheque or draft in contravention of section 269SS of the Income tax Act, 1961. In response to Assessing officer s query, the assessee submitted that the transactions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
