Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
From the Courts »
 Bhushan Steel vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune (Supreme Court)
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal : Kolkata Benches : Kolkata. Sub : Cause List For The Cases Fixed On Friday The 15/12/2017
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
 Sunbeam Auto Private Limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Sc Johnson Products Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-8, New Delhi
  Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr CIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Stovekraft India vs. CIT (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
 CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court)
 DCIT vs. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd (Supreme Court)
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. B. C. Management Services Pvt. Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, New Delhi Vs. M/s Mahagun Technologies Pvt. Ltd., B-66, Vivek Vihar, Delhi-110095
June, 24th 2015
                 DELHI BENCH `E', NEW DELHI
     Before Sh. G. C. Gupta, Vice President And Sh. N. K. Saini, AM
            ITA No. 4410/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08
Deputy Commissioner of            Vs M/s Mahagun Technologies Pvt.
Income Tax, Central Circle-03,       Ltd., B-66, Vivek Vihar,
New Delhi                            Delhi-110095
(APPELLANT)                          (RESPONDENT)
            Assessee by : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv.
            Revenue by : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 24.03.2015      Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2015

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

       This is an appeal by the department against the order
dated 22.04.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi.

2.     The only ground raised in this appeal reads as under:

      " 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income
      Tax(Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in
      deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271D of Rs.

3.     Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of
income on 03.07.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 10,560/- and the
assessment was completed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at Rs. 58,13,876/-. The AO
                                    2                  ITA Nos. 4410/Del/2013
                                                  Mahagun Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

noted that as per the accounts of M/s Mahagun Developers Ltd. in the
books of the assessee an amount of Rs. 50,05,316/- was transferred
which included air conditioners worth Rs. 19,68,769/- and building work
in progress amounting to Rs. 30,36,547/-. He also noted that a sum of
Rs. 3,48,000/- had been paid as lease rent on 28.06.2006 on behalf of the
assessee. The AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain
as to why penalty u/s 271D of the Act should not be imposed on the
aforesaid transactions. The assessee submitted that there was no
acceptance of any loans/advances in cash as required u/s 271D of the
Act and the adjustments between the associate company was made by
passing necessary journal entries. However, the AO was not satisfied
with the submissions of the assessee and levied the penalty of Rs.
53,53,316/- u/s 271D of the Act.

4.   Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A)
and made the written submissions which is incorporated in para 5.1 of
the impugned order, for the cost of repetition, the same are not
reproduced herein.

5.   The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee
observed that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the
assessee and M/s Mahagun Developers Ltd. He further observed that
there was no cash loan/deposit taken by the assessee from M/s Mahagun
Developers Ltd. and that the journal entries were made in the books of
                                    3                  ITA Nos. 4410/Del/2013
                                                  Mahagun Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

accounts of the assessee in order to acknowledge the debt incurred in
connection with renovation of the building and other expenses by the
tenant and value of air conditioners transferred. Therefore, there was no
violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and accordingly
penalty levied by the AO u/s 271D of the Act was deleted.

6.   Now the department is in appeal. The ld. DR supported the order
of the AO but could not controvert the findings given by the ld. CIT(A).
In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the
submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that
there was no receipt of loan or deposit in cash and only journal entries
were passed. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the
penalty levied by the AO u/s 271D of the Act. The reliance was placed
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of
CIT Vs Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (2014) 106 DTR (Del) 139.

7.   We have considered the submissions of both the parties and
carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the
present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee did not receive any
loan or deposit from M/s Mahagun Developers Ltd. The amount was
credited in the account of the said company on account of lease rent,
value of air conditioners and building work in progress, those entries
were in the form of adjustment between the assessee and the associate
company but no cash was involved. On a similar issue the Hon'ble
                                       4                 ITA Nos. 4410/Del/2013
                                                    Mahagun Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Worldwide Township
Projects Ltd. (supra) held as under:

     "Section 269SS indicates that it applies to a transaction where
     a deposit or a loan is accepted by an assessee, otherwise than
     by an account payee cheque or an account payee draft. The
     ambit of the Section is clearly restricted to transaction
     involving acceptance of money and not intended to affect cases
     where a debit or a liability arises on account of book entries.
     The object of the Section is to prevent transactions in currency.
     This is also clearly explicit from clause (iii) of the explanation
     to Section 269SS of the Act which defines loan or deposit to
     mean "loan or deposit of money". The liability recorded in the
     books of accounts by way of journal entries, i.e. crediting the
     account of a party to whom monies are payable or debiting the
     account of a party from whom monies are receivable in the
     books of accounts, is clearly outside the ambit of the provision
     of Section 269SS of the Act, because passing such entries does
     not involve acceptance of any loan or deposit of money. In the
     present case, admittedly no money was transacted other than
     through banking channels. M/s PACL India Ltd. made certain
     payments through banking channels to land owners. This
     payment made on behalf of the assessee was recorded by the
     assessee in its books by crediting the account of M/s PACL
     India Ltd. In view of this admitted position, no infringement of
     Section 269SS of the Act is made out. CIT Vs Noida Toll Bridge
     Co. Ltd. : 262 ITR 260, relied on."
8.    In the present case also the account of the associate concern M/s
Mahagun Developers Ltd. was credited by the assessee by passing a
journal entry and it did not involve acceptance of any loan or deposit or
money. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act were not
                                       5                   ITA Nos. 4410/Del/2013
                                                      Mahagun Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

applicable and the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271D of the Act was
rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). We do not see any infirmity in the
order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.

9.       In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed.
 (Order Pronounced in the Court on 22/06/2015)

       Sd/-                                            Sd/-
  (G. C. Gupta)                                    (N. K. Saini)
VICE PRESIDENT                                ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 22/06/2015
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
                                                     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - About Us

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions