Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd.

345 ITR 270High Court2012#933 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. authority for?

Transactions involving the receipt or repayment of loans or deposits solely through journal entries, without actual cash movement, contravene Sections 269SS and 269T. However, penalties under Sections 271D or 271E for such contraventions are not imposable if the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause under Section 273B, particularly when no cash has passed between parties.

114

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance · penalty under Section 271D · penalty under Section 271E · Section 269SS · Section 269T · journal entries · loans and deposits · reasonable cause · Section 273B · deletion of penalty

Also reported as

22 Taxmann.com 138208 Taxmann 299

Sections most often in play

Section 269SSSection 271DSection 143(3)Section 271ESection 273BSection 269TSection 10(26AAA)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271epenalty under section 271dsection 269tsection 269ssection 271esection 273section 269sssection 271dsection 269deletion of penaltysection 249(3)section 273b

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd.

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gujarat Gaurav Inn Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4406/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Cit-12(2)(2), M/S Gujrat Gaurav Inn Hotels Room No. 145, 1St Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Raj Nagar, W.E. Highway, Opp. Bhavan M.K. Road, Raj Nagar, Before Checknaka, Mumbai-400020 Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan No. Aaacg4095J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…iv) the assessee had a reasonable cause for entering into the transactions, which were done in the normal course of business. The Ld. CIT(A), then following the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 270 (Bom) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Before us, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Addl. CIT in respect of repayment of loan to the extent of Rs.27,00,000/- in cash thus violating the provisions of section 269T of the Act. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel of the appellant supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) a…

Mukundan Vijayan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 639/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 301

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, D/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.639/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2007-08 ) Shri Mukundan Vijayan, The Income Tax officer, Vs. Flat 1A,Block 6, 1st floor, Corporate ward 1(1), Rani Meyyammai Tower, Chennai-34. 66,Sathyadev Avenue, MRC Nagar, R.A.Puram, Chenni-28. PAN AAOPM 6199 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.S.Sridhar,Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R : 09.11.2017 सुनवा…

Virtuous Heaktgcare Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4498/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4497/Mum/2016 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4498/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Virtuous Health Care Ltd. Income Tax Officer 9(3)(3) Sushila Sadan Mumbai. बनाम/ Saraswathi Hospital Near Charkop Bus Depot, Vs. Kandivali(W) Mumbai – 400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-1706-A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 10/04/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 10 /04/2017 Date Of Pronouncement Assessment Year 2011-12 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…as no business dealing between the parties inter-se and also the transactions were not in the nature of current account and after placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. [2012 345 ITR 270]. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld. DR while placing reliance on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) drew our attention to Section 271D & Section 271E to contend that the case of the assessee squarely fall within the four corners of these sections and therefore, the penalty has rightly been imposed. Assessment Year 2011-12 4.…

Virtuous Heaktgcare Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4497/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4497/Mum/2016 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4498/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Virtuous Health Care Ltd. Income Tax Officer 9(3)(3) Sushila Sadan Mumbai. बनाम/ Saraswathi Hospital Near Charkop Bus Depot, Vs. Kandivali(W) Mumbai – 400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-1706-A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 10/04/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 10 /04/2017 Date Of Pronouncement Assessment Year 2011-12 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…as no business dealing between the parties inter-se and also the transactions were not in the nature of current account and after placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. [2012 345 ITR 270]. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld. DR while placing reliance on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) drew our attention to Section 271D & Section 271E to contend that the case of the assessee squarely fall within the four corners of these sections and therefore, the penalty has rightly been imposed. Assessment Year 2011-12 4.…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Pooja Gandhi, Navi Mumbai

ITA 4894/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri D. Karunakara Raoassessment Years: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Pooja Gandhi, A/303, Tax, Balaji Gardens, Sector-11, Cc-8(2), Koparkhairne, Vs. 6Th Floor, Room No.658, Navi Mumbai-400 709 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aabpa1069Q M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Beena Santosh, D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 279S

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner of Income Shri Pooja Gandhi, A/303, Tax, Balaji Gardens, Sector-11, CC-8(2), Koparkhairne, Vs. 6th Floor, Room No.658, Navi Mumbai-400 709 Aayakar Bhavan, PAN: AABPA1069Q M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.4897 & 4899/M/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Shri Devang Gandhi, A/303, Tax, Balaji Gardens, Sector-11, CC-8(2), Koparkhairne, Vs. 6th Floor, Room No.658, N…

Satidham Syntex Ltd, Bangalore vs. Addl CIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7038/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Satidham Syntex Ltd. Acit Range-5(3), Vajras, No. 1445, 28Th Main, Mumbai. South End ‘A’ Cross, Vs. Jaya Nagar, 9Th Block, Banglore-560069. Pan: Aafcs6656N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Shridhar E. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…easonable transaction. Thus, the assessee sufficiently explained the fact to the assessing officer. The Ld. AR of the assessee in support of his submission relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. M/s Triumph International Finance Ltd. 345 ITR 270 and the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in Inxcel Pharmaceutical vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 1930, 1931, 1932, 1937 & 1938/Kol/2009 dated 12.01.2012. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below and further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Bhalotia Engineering vs. CIT 169 CTR 619 (Jharkhand)/…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4896/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai, DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4898/M/2016 (AY 2008-2009) DCIT, Central Circle-8(2), फनाभ/ Shri Devang Gandhi, Mumbai. A/303, Balaji Gardens, Vs. Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Navi Mumbai – 400709. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : ABHPG0909H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle-8(2), फनाभ/ Shri Pooja Gandhi, Mumbai. Devang Gandhi, A/303, Vs. Balaji Gardens, Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Navi Mumbai, 400709. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AABPA1069Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. Nirman Overseas Pvt Ltd

ITA/618/2016HC Delhi22 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 269TSection 271E

…raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.” The Revenue contends that a question of law arises and relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I.) Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 270 (Bom). In Triumph International, the Bombay High Court adopted the strict and literal interpretation of Section 269T rejecting the argument that treatment of adjustment through book entries, carried out in the ordinary course of business would fall within the mischief of the provision. We are not persuaded with the said view and are of t…

Shiv Sharan Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 2154/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/2154/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Shiv Sharan Trading Pvt. Ltd. Acit-Range-4(3) Shop No.3, Building No.136, Mumbai-400 058. Vs. Kalbadevi, Vithalwadi, Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aajcs 9593 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Atul Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 03.01.2013 Of The Cit(A)-8,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year.Assessee Is Engaged In Renting Out Of Various Commercial Properties.The Return Of Income Was Processed On 23-07-2009.Assessment U/S.143 (3)R.W.S. 147 Of The Act,Was Completed On 30.09.2011,Assessing Its Income At Rs.7,31, 501/-.

For Appellant: Shri Atul MehtaFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271D

…anthi (255 ITR 258). The Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the FAA. 3 2154/M/13-shivsharan trdg. 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that in the case of Triumph International Finance (I.) Ltd.(345 ITR 270),the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has discussed the issue and has held as under: 23. The expression "reasonable cause" used in section 273B is not defined under the Act. Unlike the expression "sufficient cause" used in section 249(3), 253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the Legislature has used the expression "reasonable cause" in section 273B of the Ac…

Monica K Savlani, Mumbai vs. JCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7468/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Monica K. Savlani, Jcit 19(3) 201, Parishram, 3Rd Floor, R.No.301, बनाम/ 40 Nargis Dutt Rd, Pali Hill, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bandra(W) Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aisps5237P "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri K.S. Chokshi (Ar) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vivekanand Ojha (Dr)

Section 269SSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 272A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,B,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Monica K. Savlani, JCIT 19(3) 201, Parishram, 3rd Floor, R.No.301, बनाम/ 40 Nargis Dutt Rd, Pali Hill, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bandra(W) Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.AISPS5237P "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri K.S. Chokshi (AR) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Vivekanand Ojha (DR) 28/04/2016 सुनवाई…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahajan Industries P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1191/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO Vs. Mahajan Industries P. Ltd. Ward-6(1) E-1, NDSE, Part-II New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAACM0878R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ashok Malik, F. C.A Revenue by Shri P.Dam Kanunjana, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.02.2016 Date of pronouncement 09 .03.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dated 13.12.2013 of the ld. CIT(Appeals)-IX, New Delhi deleting the penalty u/s 271E of the Act, rai…

DCIT CC 1, Mumbai vs. Sanju Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3790/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Anant PaiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.3790/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–1, Old CGO Bldg. Annexe ……………. Appellant 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 v/s Shri Sanju Kothari 21, Springfield, 19, V. Gandhi Road ……………. Respondent Gamdevi, Mumbai 400 007 PAN – AUWPK6381L Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal Assessee by : Shri Anant Pai Date of Hearing – 24.02.2016 Date of Order – 04.03.2016 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal by the Departme…

Maman Singh, Delhi vs. JCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1255/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Maman Singh, Vs. Jcit, Range-Ii, C/O- Sh. Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Atvps9067P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Yatendra Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Gurgaon, Wherein He Confirmed The Penalty Levied Under Section 271E Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Joint/ Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax For Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269T Of The Act During Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271E Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 18,00,000/- Wrongly Imposed For Alleged Violation Of Section 269T Of The Act. Ii. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Yatendra Singh, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 273BSection 274

…r hand, relied on the orders of lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused material available on record. We find that in view of number of judgments including judgements in the cases of CIT Vs Trimph International Finance Ltd (2012) 345 ITR 270( Bom) and CIT Vs T. Perumal (INDL) (2015) 370 ITR 313(Mad), it is settled law that the penalty levied under Section 271D/271E for violation of the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T is not justified, where the assessee is able to successfully demonstrate the reasonable cause for non-compliance of the 6 conditions of section 269SS/269T of the Ac…

Nav- Yug Sewing Machine Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5471/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Surjeet Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

…ITAT, Mumbai (ITA No. 698/Mumb/2010) in the case of ACIT vs. KNP Securities Pvt. Ltd. (vii). Order dt. 25.10.11 of ITAT, Mumbai (ITA No.6077 & 6078/Mumb/2009) in the case of Luminant Investments Ltd. v/s DCIT. (viii). Triumph International Finance Ltd.(2012) 22 Taxmann.com 138(Bombay). 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, relying on the orders of the authorities below, submitted that the assessee-company does not come within the exceptions given in section 269SS and he, having accepted the loan otherwise than by way of account payee cheque/draft as contemplated u/s. 269SS of the Act, is liable for penalty u/s.…