269SS / T |
Question 01 (Reasonable Cause)
The assessee a subsidiary company of another purchase certain goods from the holding company. It could not repay the price. The amount payable was converted into a loan of rupees 25,000 & the remaining odd amount was paid by cheque. The A.O. wants to create this as contravention of the provisions of section 269SS & accordingly the joint commissioner wants to levy a penalty u/s 271 D. Is he justified?
Question 02 (Reasonable Cause) (Revision / Home work)
A dentist took loan from friends & relatives in cash for repayment of installments of his flat & for purchasing instruments for his Clinic A penalty was levied u/s 271 D. Is it justified?
Question 03 (Reasonable Cause)
The assessee firm repaid deposits in cash Rs. 25,000. The assessee explained that it had three sister concerns & their partners were closely related to each other. Funds were often transferred among them according to the requirement so, they were not deposits. Hence, the penalty u/s. 271 E is not justified. Do you agree?
Question 04 (Reasonable Cause) (Revision / Home work)
A person has repaid the deposit in cash Rs. 30,000. He did not have any business activity or profession so there were no books of accounts. A penalty has been imposed u/s 271 E. The person repaying the deposit argues that the deposits when accepted were treated as genuine. for Income Tax assessment. Hence, at the time of repayment also they should be considered as genuine and no penalty should be levied. Is the argument acceptable?
Question 05 (Reasonable Cause)
Assessee company received from one ‘S’ cash amounts of Rs. 7,000 on 12-10 and Rs. 34,000 on 20-2 Latter amount was received admittedly towards share application money but as no shares could be allotted to ‘S’, it was subsequently transferred to loan account of ‘S’. Penalty for violating section 269SS was imposed on assessee in respect of total amount of Rs. 41,000.
Whether both receipts had to be taken into account for purpose of application of penalty in as much as first receipt remained unpaid at time of receipt of second receipt.
Whether it would be incorrect to construe share application money as loan or deposit in as much as enlargement of meaning of loan or deposit.
Whether, therefore, assessee’s case fell out of purview of section 269SS and penalty imposed on it under section 271D.
Question 06 (Reasonable Cause) (Revision / Home work)
The Assessing Officer had levied penalty on the assessee on the ground that it had received an amount of Rs. 6,49,344 from D otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. The Tribunal deleted the penalty because it found that the amount was an advance for purchase of a truck and the amount was adjusted against the value of the truck. This fact had also not been denied by the Department. The truck had been transferred by the assessee to D as per the oral agreement between the parties. You are required to offer your comments.
Question 07 (Reasonable Cause) (Revision / Home work)
The assessee had received foreign inward remittances from the USA amounting to Rs. 16.61 lakhs from BSRK's account, the CEO and main shareholder of the company into the company's current account with the Global Trust Bank. According to the assessee, since it was in liquidity crunch and incurring cash losses, to save considerable time and expenses, it received the amount through foreign inward remittance instead of account payee cheque/demand draft. According to the Department, such transfer of money did not tantamount to account payee cheque and account payee draft, it was only otherwise than such mode. Penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was imposed against the assessee on the ground that it violated the provisions of section 269SS. Whether the imposition of penalty will be justified
Question 08 (Reasonable Cause) (Revision / Home work)
Whether payment of amount made by a partner to a firm is payment to self and does not partake character of loan or deposit in general law and, therefore, provisions of section 269SS are not applicable and no penalty is imposable under section 271D. whether you agree with this.
Question 09 (Reasonable Cause) (Revision / Home work)
Where assessee-company purchased goods from its holding company and while it paid part purchase price by account-payee cheque, for rest of purchase price it made adjustment in its books of account by transferring equivalent amount from ‘goods purchase account’ to ‘Sarafi account’ standing in holding company’s name. you are required to answer whether such adjustment attract penalty within meaning of section 269SS.
Question 10 (Reasonable Cause)
Fearless General Finance & Investment Limited, a residuary non-banking company, accepts public deposits, issues deposit certificate and repays the same after some period of time along with interest, under different schemes run by it. Following transactions were noted from their books of account:
(i) Mr. A, an individual, has deposited 15,000 on 1 May, for 48 months by bearer cheque and another 15,000 on 31 June, in cash to purchase a new certificate of 48 months tenure.
(ii) Mr. A has applied for premature withdrawal against both the certificates and the company has paid him 16,500, by a bearer cheque, against principal and interest on 23rd March, due against his first certificate and 15,500 in cash on 25 March, against the second certificate.
Discuss the violation of income tax provision, if any, and consequential penalty for each transaction. Will it make any difference if the certificates were held by Mr. A with his wife Mrs. A, jointly, while repaying back in cash or bearer cheque ?
Question 11 (Reasonable Cause)
An assessee had credited a sum of 50,000 in cash in the account of Madan, said to represent a loan obtained from him. The Assessing Officer, having gone into the genuineness of the transaction, disbelieved the story of loan and treated the sum of 50,000 as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. He also started proceedings under section 271D and levied a penalty of 60,000 on the assessee for having accepted the loan in contravention of section 269SS. Examine the correctness of the levy.