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 :

        2016 (4) TMI 303 - 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 upholds penalty for Section 269SS violation, dismissing appellant's arguments on limitation. The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 76,000 under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS, dismissing the appellant's arguments on limitation of ...
                      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 upholds penalty for Section 269SS violation, dismissing appellant's arguments on limitation.

                          The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 76,000 under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS, dismissing the appellant's arguments on limitation of penalty order initiation and validity of demand notice. The Tribunal found the loan transactions with sister concerns did not qualify for exceptions under the Act, differing from a cited judgment. The appeal was dismissed entirely, affirming the penalty imposition and statutory compliance within the time limit.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Limitation of the penalty order under Section 271D.
                          2. Validity of the demand notice under Section 156.
                          3. Loan transactions with sister concerns.
                          4. Applicability of the Gujarat High Court judgment in CIT vs Shree Ambica Flour Mills Corporation.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Limitation of the Penalty Order under Section 271D:
                          The appellant contended that the penalty order passed by the Addl. CIT was barred by limitation. The appellant argued that the penalty proceedings were initiated on 30.11.2010, and the order was passed on 25.08.2011, beyond the permissible period. However, the CIT(A) clarified that the penalty proceedings under Section 271D were initiated on 26.04.2011, and the order was passed on 25.08.2011. According to Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the limitation period is reckoned from the date when the penalty proceedings are initiated by the Addl. CIT, not from the date of completion of assessment proceedings. Hence, the order was within the time limit, and the appellant's contention was dismissed.

                          2. Validity of the Demand Notice under Section 156:
                          The appellant argued that the demand notice issued under Section 156 should have been signed by the Addl. CIT, Range-3, Surat. The CIT(A) observed that the penalty order under Section 271D was signed by the Addl. CIT, while the demand notice and challan were rightly signed by the ITO Ward 3(1), Surat, as the jurisdiction over the appellant vested with the latter. Therefore, this ground of appeal was dismissed.

                          3. Loan Transactions with Sister Concerns:
                          The appellant contended that the loan transactions in cash were with sister concerns (family members) only, and thus should not attract penalty under Section 271D. The CIT(A) noted that the appellant accepted cash loans of Rs. 19,000 each on four different dates, totaling Rs. 76,000, from M/s Jay Mahalaxmi Textiles, which was in contravention of Section 269SS of the Act. The appellant argued that these transactions were genuine and bona fide, carried out due to a shortage of cash for business purposes. However, the CIT(A) found that the transactions did not fall under the exceptions provided in Section 269SS, and the penalty was correctly imposed.

                          4. Applicability of the Gujarat High Court Judgment in CIT vs Shree Ambica Flour Mills Corporation:
                          The appellant relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs Shree Ambica Flour Mills Corporation, where transactions between sister concerns were considered genuine and reasonable. The CIT(A) distinguished the facts of the present case from the cited judgment, noting that the transactions in the appellant's case were purely loan transactions in cash, deliberately kept below Rs. 20,000 on each date to avoid detection. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was upheld.

                          Tribunal's Findings:
                          The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A), confirming that the penalty under Section 271D was rightly imposed and within the statutory time limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's contentions regarding the genuineness of the transactions and the applicability of the Gujarat High Court judgment. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

                          Conclusion:
                          The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty of Rs. 76,000 under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS was upheld. The Tribunal confirmed that the penalty proceedings were initiated and completed within the statutory time limit, and the transactions in cash with sister concerns did not fall under the exceptions provided in the Act.
                          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