9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings, had been assessed as undisclosed income of assessee under section 68 of the Act-Whether such amount could be considered as deposit/loan in violation of section 269SS/269T for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/271E. The Hon'ble High Court has decided matter in favour of assessee. Apart from above said judgment, assessee also cited a judgment Young Men Christian Association [ 2014 (8) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] wherein it is held once certain amount was subjected to tax u/s 68, question of treating it as transaction in violation of section 269SS or section 269T did not arise as it stood mutually excluded - we allow the appeal of the assessee. - ITA No. 2173/Ahd/2018 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2021 - Pradip Kumar Kedia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsactions and considering also that there was reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act, penalty u/s. 271D was not leviable. It be so held now and penalty of ₹ 17,40,000/- be deleted. 4. The order passed by the Id. JCIT is illegal, invalid and bad in law. It be annulled now. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that assessee had taken amount of ₹ 17,40,000/- from Shri Mitesh R. Shah through cash and for which the Ld. A.O. levied the penalty of ₹ 17,40,000/- u/s. 271D of the Act, as the loan acceptance was made otherwise by an account payee cheque. 3. Assessee company had accepted the amount of ₹ 17,40,000/- in cash from director Shri Mitesh R. Shah as the assessee company was required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t firm treating the amount received as appellant companies income by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 07.01.2016 and assessee paid taxes thereon. 8. In support of its contention, Ld. A.R. cited a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of CIT vs. Shyam Corporation 218 Taxman 136 (Guj.) wherein it is held that if assessee received booking advance in cash which, during assessment proceedings, had been assessed as undisclosed income of assessee under section 68 of the Act-Whether such amount could be considered as deposit/loan in violation of section 269SS/269T for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/271E. The Hon'ble High Court has decided matter in favour of assessee. 9. Apart from above said judgment, assessee also cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
