Skip to main content

Cash Loan from Parents and Brother for purchasing House for whole Family do not attract Penalty

In ITA No.7792/Del/2018, Sonia Malik vs Vs. JCIT, the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary and other sources. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total income at Rs.34,12,062/- wherein he disallowed an apart of the long-term capital gain claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act apart from making the addition of Rs.57,538/- on account of interest and Rs.8,160/- under the head ‘Salary.’ The officer further levied penalty under section 271D on the ground that the assessee had taken cash loan of Rs.1,25,000/- from Shri Darshan Singh Gujral, Rs.1,00,000/- from Smt. Joginder Kaur and Rs1 lakh from Shri Gurdeep Singh Gujral and, therefore, she has violated the provisions of section 269SS.

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noticed the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel wherein it was held that ‘a family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof was contained in the compilation of accounts, and which had no tax effect, established ‘reasonable cause’ under section 273 B of the Act’ and, therefore, the provisions of section 271D are not applicable and  ruled that the cash loan received from the parents and brother of the assessee for the purchase of the house for the whole family cannot be penalized under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act.

Article referred: https://www.taxscan.in/cash-loan-parents-brother-purchasing-house-whole-family-attract-penalty-itat/35781/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more