| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 6284 (SC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 261 Section 271E
Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Pr. CIT v. Meenakshi Modi [ITA No. 156/2018, dt. 24-1-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 8055 (Raj-HC), whereby the High Court held that AO was having books of account of assessee including cash book evidencing the contentious payment and it was thus incumbent upon AO to record finding that there existed a loan or deposit or advance by the said recipient, that in absence of any loan or advance by recipient, cash payment made to it did not fall foul of section 269T and consequently, levy of penalty under section 271E was uncalled for, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP however, leaving all questions of law open.
|
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition - Penalty under section 271E - Contravention of section 269T--Absence of any loan or advance by related person
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Pr. CIT v. Meenakshi Modi [ITA No. 156/2018, dt. 24-1-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 8055 (Raj-HC), whereby the High Court held that AO was having books of account of assessee including cash book evidencing the contentious payment and it was thus incumbent upon AO to record finding that there existed a loan or deposit or advance by the said recipient, that in absence of any loan or advance by recipient, cash payment made to it did not fall foul of section 269T and consequently, levy of penalty under section 271E was uncalled for.Held: Since the tax effect involved in this matter was less than Rs. 2 crores, there was no reason to interfere in this matter. The special leave petition was dismissed leaving all the questions of law open.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|