2015 (2) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the share application money received in cash is in the nature of deposit and not in contravention to the provisions of Section 269 SS and hence penalty under Section 271D of the Act is not attracted?         2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had reasonable cause in holding a bonafide belief that the money accepted was neither loan nor deposit and therefore the penalty under Section 271D of the Act is to be deleted?        3. Whether based on the material evidences before the Tribunal, it could have come to the conclu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue has not doubted the genuineness of the transaction and the assessee had a bonafide belief that share application money received was neither loans or deposits. The Tribunal further held that when rigours of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied, penalty could not be levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. 4. As against the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court raising the above-mentioned substantial questions of law. 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In the decision reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), this Court had an occasion to consider the similar issue, w....