2003 (1) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns of section 271D(1) and section 269SS of the Act of 1961 ?" - Having gone through the provisions of section 269SS with regard to the mode of taking and accepting certain loans and deposits and section 271D with regard to the penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS, we are of the opinion that in case, any loan is there exceeding Rs. 20,000 and for that purpose any penal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt year 1990-91. Since the facts and the question involved in these matters are identical, we propose to decide both these appeals against the two common orders as aforesaid by this common judgment and order as under. We have heard learned counsel Sh. Bhandawat and gone through the question as was framed by the court while admitting Appeal No.7 of 2000 on August 18, 2000. The question framed by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 955, the permissible amount of Rs. 20,000 has to be adjusted. In this view of the matter, we find that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while passing these orders has not committed any illegality in remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner of the Range. The Tribunal has passed innocuous order that the matter should be remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner Range, who will recalcul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X