Perform their answer getting exact same in case your company i.elizabeth. Mr. Z deposits currency which have Mr.X hence cash is reimbursed of the Mr. X so you’re able to your with the expiration off assurance several months?
When this occurs of your energy, the new Manager from his very own loans, transferred the sum of on bank account of appellant organization
ANS: Retentions away from contractor’sbills as the ‘Cover Deposit’–whether or not put Depending on Para poder 39(c)out-of Once the-7 Construction Agreements aforementioned number given that retentions.For this reason, it is not really proper to-name these defense dumps. He could be retentions.Thus, withholding quantity away from contractor’sbills and you will introducing him or her shortly after assurance period will not appeal condition 29(a) and/or clause 31(d) away from Setting 3CD. Just like the money is maybe not “received”.
But not, in the event the builder dumps money that have assessee which cash is refunded by the assessee so you’re able to your into the expiry from assurance several months – condition 31(a) and/otherwise 31(b) commonly attracted because amount is gotten.
Q.Mr. Mohan, Spouse in M/s GSM & Couples lead to the firm otherwise than of the cheque. If or not Mr. Mohan is subscribe the company or even than of the cheque?
ANS: Installment otherwise bill from amount to people: When the somebody introduces financing inside cash in the business or withdraws payday now loans Springfield MO a similar for the track regarding Rs 20,one hundred thousand or in more than Rs 20,100, following Arrangements regarding area 269SS or 269T will not be drawn due to the fact advent of funding otherwise detachment off corporation cannot be called as fund or deposits. Count paid back from the organization to help you people otherwise vice versa fee to thinking and does not use the reputation off financing or deposits typically law. Conditions from part 269SS are not appropriate to help you like factors (CIT v. Lokhpat Movie Change (Cinema) 304 ITR 172 (Raj.) Shrepak Enterprises against. Dy. CIT 64 ITD 3 hundred (Ahd – Trib) 82 TTJ 549.
Q.Mr. Ramesh & Co. acquired a loan vide cheque which is Crossed but not an Membership Payee cheque. Will there be one penalty u/s 271D?
Regardless of if an improvement can be acquired between entered and you can stop payeehair-breaking with this isn’t justified about from inside the part 269SS/269T perspective but is therefore warranted when you look at the area forty Good(3) contex.
Q. Wether direct put of cash when you look at the directly stored organizations bank account from the manager is loan or put less than section 269SS?
For the Mangala Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl CIT [ITA Nos. 1900 & 1901/Bang/2004-acquisition dated 17-4-2006], this dilemma try sensed of the ITAT. The Tribunal kept that even though the appellant-company and its particular Administrators are a couple of other judge agencies, the fresh appellant is a closely kept business whose facts are addressed from the Directors. As it is lacking loans in order to notice that cheques granted from it are removed, they had to remain enough harmony in Bank.
Ans: When head put of cash is generated inside directly stored company’sbank account there would be no contravention from area 269SS
In the event this is exactly considered as acquiring the sum of regarding Manager, it cannot qualify just like the taking that loan otherwise acknowledging new dumps within its true feel(into the purposes of part 269SS). The fresh appellant, being closely kept team additionally the factors becoming handled by the Director, most of the time, he could be that therefore the same.
The Bangalore Workbench from ITAT in the Sri Renukeswara Grain Mills vs. ITO(93 ITD 263) got kept in the context of point 40A(3) that where costs are manufactured if you don’t than because of the membership payee cheque in direct the financial institution membership of your payee, it suits on goal of the legislature no disallowance can be produced not as much as point 40A(3). Using the same concept, it can be opined whenever lead deposit of money was made in (directly kept) organization’s family savings there is zero contravention out-of area 269SS.