LOVE SHOPPERS LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 285/RJT/2022Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 May 2023AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the transaction does not exempt the assessee from penalty under Section 271D. The assessee failed to demonstrate any emergency circumstances necessitating the cash receipt, and sufficient balance was available in the bank.

What were the facts?

The assessee company received a cash loan of Rs. 13,25,000/- from its director, which was also repaid in cash. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271D is leviable for accepting a cash loan from a director in violation of Section 269SS, even if the transaction is genuine and there are no emergency circumstances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
For Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17, arises from order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26-08-2021, in proceedings under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

I.T.A No. 285/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 M/s. Love Shoppers vs. DCIT

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1 The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another.

2.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred as to the "CIT(A)"] erred on facts as also in law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act at Rs. 13,25,000/- on

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →