Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2012 (12) TMI 123 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal dismisses penalty for non-cash transactions under Income-tax Act The Tribunal upheld the decision to cancel the penalty imposed under Section 271D for violating Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal dismisses penalty for non-cash transactions under Income-tax Act

                            The Tribunal upheld the decision to cancel the penalty imposed under Section 271D for violating Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found that the transactions were genuine, bona fide, and did not involve cash payments, as they were made through book adjustments, not violating the provisions of Section 269SS. The Tribunal referenced relevant case law and emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 269SS was to prevent tax evasion through cash transactions, which was not applicable in this case. As a result, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the penalty was deemed unjustified.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act for violation of Section 269SS.
                            2. Applicability of the decision in the case of Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd.
                            3. Consideration of any fresh grounds of appeal.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271D for Violation of Section 269SS:
                            The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a penalty amounting to Rs. 14,32,57,724/- levied under Section 271D for the assessee accepting loans otherwise than by account payee cheques or drafts, violating Section 269SS. The Assessing Officer (AO) had identified that the assessee received unsecured loans from M/s Duce Properties and Services Pvt. Ltd. (now M/s Jindal Reality Pvt. Ltd.) through transactions not conforming to Section 269SS. The Addl. CIT imposed the penalty, rejecting the assessee's defense that the payments were made directly to landowners by M/s Duce via account payee cheques due to the assessee not having a bank account.

                            2. Applicability of the Decision in Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd.:
                            The CIT(A) cancelled the penalty, citing the case of CIT v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 260, where no cash loan was involved, and transactions were through journal entries. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee and M/s Duce were associate companies, and the transactions were genuine and bona fide, made under a joint development agreement. The payments were made directly to farmers by account payee cheques, and the transactions were recorded as unsecured loans in the books.

                            3. Consideration of Fresh Grounds of Appeal:
                            The Revenue's appeal included a general ground to add, delete, or amend any grounds of appeal. However, no additional grounds were raised during the proceedings.

                            Judgment Analysis:
                            The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty. It emphasized that the assessee did not have a bank account at the time of the transactions, and no payments were made in cash. The Tribunal reiterated that Section 269SS requires loans or deposits to be accepted through account payee cheques or drafts to prevent tax evasion through unaccounted cash. However, in this case, the transactions were through book adjustments, not involving any transfer of money, thus not violating Section 269SS. The Tribunal noted that the legislative intent behind Section 269SS was to curb tax evasion through cash transactions, which was not applicable here as the transactions were genuine, bona fide, and involved no cash.

                            The Tribunal referenced several precedents, including:
                            - CIT v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., where similar circumstances led to the deletion of penalty as no cash loan was involved.
                            - CIT v. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF), where immediate need of money justified transactions not intended to evade tax.
                            - Various ITAT decisions where journal entries for loans or deposits did not attract Section 269SS penalties.

                            The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's interpretation in Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi, emphasizing that genuine and bona fide transactions could exempt the assessee from penalties under Section 271D.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the assessee's transactions did not violate Section 269SS, and the penalty under Section 271D was not justified. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found