CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd.

285 ITR 221High Court2006#1853 most cited

What is CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd. authority for?

Money received by a company as share application money from directors or shareholders, especially when no interest is charged and held in a current account, does not constitute a 'loan or deposit' under Section 269SS. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under Section 271D for such transactions.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd. · Section 269SS · Section 271D · penalty levy · share application money · loan definition · deposit definition · cash transactions · directors' advances · contravention of Section 269SS

Also reported as

163 Taxmann 265

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 269SSSection 269STSection 271DSection 68

Issues it is cited on

section 269tsection 269ssection 269sssection 271dsection 269levy of penaltysection 26genuineness of the transactionreasonable causesection 271section 27undisclosed income

Judgments citing CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd.

ITO, Ward - 3(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Jaggi Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/KOL/2010[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

…g account maintained by assessee and its sister concern. We find that this issue is covered in favour of assessee where funds are received from sister concern by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT Vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad), wherein the Hon’ble High court has held as under: 3 M/s. Jaggi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. AY 1996-97 “We heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Revenue. We have perused the materials available in record. Admittedly Mr. S. V. S. Manian was one of the directors. Therefore the order of the lower authority clearly shows that there was a running…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Samora Hotels P.Ltd

The appeal is allowed

ITA - 313 / 2006HC Delhi23 Feb 2012
For Appellant: Mr Kiran BabuFor Respondent: Mr Anoop Sharma
Section 269SSection 271D

…ed that the amounts could not be regarded as loans or deposits as they were receipts from directors/ 2012:DHC:1244-DB ITA No.313/06 Page 7 of 14 shareholders. In support, the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd : 285 ITR 221 was cited. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that, in any event, the “loans” were genuine and the assessee had demonstrated a “reasonable cause” for its failure to comply with section 269SS of the said Act. 11. First of all, let us have a look at sections 269SS, 271D and 273B: “269SS. Mode of taking or accepting certai…