TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 845
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act: Shri K. Ponraj Rs. 40,000 Shri L. Srinivasan Rs. 97,000 Smt. P. Latha Rs. 25,000 Smt. Janaki Rs. 1,25,000 Shri J. Sriram Rs. 28,000 4. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the levy of penalty u/s 271D of Rs. 2,87,000/- by observing that the deposits of Rs. 40,000/- from shri K. Ponraj, Rs. 97,000/- from Shri L. Srinivasan, Rs. 25,000/- from Smt. P. Latha, and Rs. 1,25,000/- from Smt. Janaki were received by the assessee-company were by way of transfer of deposits originally made in Well Shine Investment and Finance Services Ltd to the assessee- company on the request of the above individual depositors by way of journal entry as the companies are under the same group of companies. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) held that there was no direct acceptance of cash from the said persons in violation of provisions of section 269SS and therefore, deleted the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act of Rs. 2,87,00/- thereby restricting the levy of penalty to Rs. 28,000/- only. 5. The ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer whereas the ld. A.R of the assessee suppo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft if the aggregate of such loans or deposits exceed the prescribed limit. Section 269T provides that likewise no repayment of any loan or deposit shall be made otherwise than by such bank instruments where the amount exceeds the limit. In both these sections what is to be seen is that law becomes operative when loan or deposit is accepted or loan or deposit is repaid. The terms 'accepted' and 'repaid' connotes actual transfer of funds from person to person. The law discourages transfer of such funds by cash. The law further provides that such transfer should be made through prescribed bank instruments. When the terms are particular about the movements of funds from one person to another, the section would operate only if the loans or deposits are accepted or loans or deposits are repaid de facto by transmission of funds, in praesenti. 18. This view has been expressed in a series of Tribunal decisions referred to by the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) in his orders. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Amar Nath Shivraj(HUF), the Pune Bench of the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deration for the total built-up area of 52,099 sq ft. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the built-up area of 18,129 sq ft on proportionate amount of Rs. 16,82,411/-. The Assessing Officer did not allow the proportionate claim for the built-up area for apartments below 1500 sq ft on the ground that section 80IB(10) does not consider proportionate disallowance. 12. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. in IT Appeal No.453 of 2006, allowed the claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) to the assessee for those apartments with built up area of less than 1500 sq ft. 13. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR very fairly conceded that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise, Tax Case Appeal Nos.581 & 582 of 2011 and 314 & 315 of 2012 and M.P No.1 of 2011, order dated 1.11.2012, reported in AIT-2012-347-HC. 15. On the ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at in 12th floor was sold on 15.10.2003 and in the 9th floor on 5.11.2003. The flats in the first floor with Nos.101 and 102 were sold on 17.6.2009. Apart from this, we find that there were still some flats left unsold. 30. In the background of these facts, the risk factors, as projected by the assessee accepted by the Tribunal, needs to be seen. Under Clause 4 of the agreement, the assessee was to collect a sum of Rs. 600/- per sq.ft. on super built-up area for the sale of undivided share of land transferred to the buyer. The said clause also fixes the ceiling as to the consideration, which would be paid to the owner, namely, at Rs. 11,51,94,000/-. The clause in the agreement further pointed out that the builder has to enter into a builder agreement with the proposed purchaser and it is open to the builder to fix such rate per square foot for construction of the area as it deems fit, over which the owner has no claim at all. The builder has to pay the specified cost of the land on the undivided share of sale in favour of the purchaser to the owner, pro-rata to the built-up area. A reading of the agreement of sale with the purchasers further points out that the builder'....