Manage the answer be exact same in case the specialist we.age. Mr. Z deposits money that have Mr.X and that money is reimbursed by the Mr. X so you can your to your expiry off assurance period?
When this occurs of energy, the fresh new Director regarding his very own finance, deposited the sum about family savings of the appellant business
ANS: Retentions out-of contractor’sbills because ‘Protection Deposit’–whether put According to Con el fin de 39(c)out of Given that-seven Framework Agreements aforementioned wide variety since retentions.Ergo, it is not very right to name this type of shelter places. He could be retentions.Very, withholding number out-of contractor’sbills and releasing them immediately after guarantee period will not interest condition 29(a) and/otherwise term 30(d) regarding Form 3CD. Once the cash is maybe not “received”.
Yet not, in the event the specialist deposits currency having assessee hence cash is reimbursed from the assessee in order to him with the expiration away from assurance several months – clause 31(a) and/otherwise 29(b) will lured just like the matter try received.
Q.Mr. Mohan, Companion from inside the M/s GSM & Partners triggered the organization otherwise than just of the cheque. Whether or not Mr. Mohan is sign up to the firm or even than just because of the cheque?
ANS: Cost or bill regarding amount to couples: In the event that a partner raises funding when you look at the money in the organization or withdraws an equivalent towards the track out of Rs 20,100 or in overabundance Rs 20,100, following Conditions out of part 269SS or 269T shall not lured just like the regarding investment otherwise detachment of corporation can not be known as fund or dumps. Amount paid back by agency to help you lovers or vice versa percentage so you’re able to worry about and will not use the profile from loan otherwise places typically rules. Arrangements off section 269SS aren’t applicable so you can such as for example factors (CIT v. Lokhpat Flick Replace (Cinema) 304 ITR 172 (Raj.) Shrepak Companies versus. Dy. CIT 64 ITD three hundred (Ahd – Trib) 82 TTJ 549.
Q.Mr. Ramesh & Co. received financing vide cheque which is Entered but not a keen Account Payee cheque. Is there one penalty you/s 271D?
Regardless if a positive change is available between crossed and you may counter payeehair-breaking with this isn’t justified https://perfectloans24.com/payday-loans-ok/idabel/ at least within the section 269SS/269T perspective it is thus rationalized inside part forty An effective(3) contex.
Q. Wether lead put of cash inside directly stored businesses savings account from the movie director try loan or put significantly less than section 269SS?
Within the Mangala Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus. Addl CIT [ITA Nos. 1900 & 1901/Bang/2004-order old 17-4-2006], this matter try thought by ITAT. This new Tribunal kept one although the appellant-business and its own Directors are two various other court organizations, the newest appellant is a closely stored providers whose things try addressed of the Directors. Whilst are lacking money and to observe that cheques approved by using it try cleared, they was required to remain enough balance in the Bank.
Ans: Whenever lead put of cash is established during the directly kept company’sbank account there is zero contravention from part 269SS
No matter if this might be thought to be receiving the sum of the out of Manager, it can’t meet the requirements as the delivering financing otherwise acknowledging the fresh new places within the true feel(to your reason for part 269SS). The fresh appellant, are directly kept company therefore the facts being handled of the Movie director, broadly speaking, he is that in addition to same.
New Bangalore Table off ITAT for the Sri Renukeswara Rice Mills versus. ITO(93 ITD 263) got held in the context of section 40A(3) one to where in actuality the repayments manufactured otherwise than by membership payee cheque directly in the bank account of the payee, they matches for the aim of the legislature no disallowance can be produced not as much as section 40A(3). Applying the same principle, it may be opined if direct deposit of cash is actually produced in (directly held) company’s savings account there is no contravention regarding section 269SS.