TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1063
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the assessee company has taken amounts from its Director Shri Vijay Singh Rana and Mrs.Manju Rana. Amounts were withdrawn from the capital account of the Proprietary concern of Shri Vijay Singh Rana and remitted into the account of the assessee to the tune of Rs.10,75,800/-. Similarly Smt.Manju Rana, the other Director, withdrew amounts from her capital account in her Proprietary concern M/s. M.V.N.T.R.Industries and remitted the same to the assessee company to the tune of Rs.4,12,500/-. The AO was of the view that the assessee violated S.269(SS) of the Act. The assessee was asked for the explanation. The assessee submitted that the amount was given as share application money and hence not a loan or deposit. It was also submitted that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT vs. IP India P.Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-811-HC-DEL. (c) That S.269SS will not apply in case of bonafide disclosed transactions for bonafide purpose in view of business exigencies and not involving any tax evasion; CIT vs. M/s Lakshmi Trust Co. 2007-TIOL-HC-Mad-IT DIT vs. All India Deaf and Dumb Society - 2005-TIOL-103-HC-DEL CIT vs. Bombay Contractors and Electricals Ltd. 301 ITR 328 (Guj.) 4. The Ld.D.R. on the other hand relied on the order of the First Appellate Authority and submitted that the penalty was rightly confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has not demonstrated reasonable cause and the company diverted its own f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Proprietor of Manian Creation, was current account in nature and was not a loan or deposit. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the contention and was of the view that there was a clear violation of the provisions of section 271D and levied a penalty of Rs. 2,94,000 under section 271D of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that even though there was reasonable cause to hold that there was a violation of the provision under section 269SS which attracted penalty under section 271D, he has referred the Madras High Court judgment in the case of Kumari A. B. Shanthi (alias) Vennira Adai Nirmala v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was also found that the assessee filed a letter dated September 29, 1997, and in that letter he explained that the amount received from Mr. S. V. S. Manian had been shown as "unsecured loan from directors" in the balance-sheet. As per the Companies Act, under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, under rule 2(b)(ix), deposit does not include any amount received from a director or a shareholder of a private limited company. Therefore the transaction between the appellant and the director cum shareholder is not a loan or deposit and it is only a current account in nature and no interest is being charged for the above transaction. In the foregoing conclusions, we are of the view that since the said transactio....