LegalKart Editor

LegalKart Editor

LegalKart has an inhouse team of editors who research on the most relevant topics and write articles which can help understand the issue in a simple and easy manner. LegalKart aims to simplify law and make legal accessible to every Indian.

38 POST
Cash transaction of ₹2 Lakh? You may be liable to pay 100 percent penalty of the transaction amount to Income Tax
Banking / Finance

Cash transaction of ₹2 Lakh? You may be liable to pay 100 percent penalty of the transaction amount to Income Tax

image: The hindu business line. 

 

In the last financial budget, the government has come up with the introduction of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, which states in detail that Section 269STprohibits any person to receive an amount of Rs.2 lakh or more in cash”:

(i) In aggregate from a person in a day, or
(ii) In a single transaction, or
(iii) In respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion from a person .

 

Few examples to understand the new tax amendment:

 

  1. Suppose, Mr. X sells furniture worth Rs 4,50,000 and makes three different bills of Rs 1,50,000 and gives one to each person & accepts cash in a day, at different times, the Section 269 ST (a) will get violated.

 

  1. Secondly, Mr. Y sells gold worth Rs5, 00,000 through a single bill to another person and receives cash of Rs 2, 50,000 on the first day and the remaining on the next day, then Section 269ST(B) gets violated.

 

  1. Thirdly, Mr. Z accepts an order for catering, flowers & light decoration, occasion venue rent in respect for the event of marriage from Mr. A. He accepts cash of Rs 1,00,000 for the purpose of catering; Rs 1,50,000 for decoration; Rs 1,50,000 for the venue booking, then also section 269 ST(c) gets violated, even if he accepts cash on different dates because all the three transaction is relating to occasion of A’s marriage.

 

Thus, we can understand that in all the three cases, section 269ST gets violated and penalty u/s 271DA is applicable.

 

Penalty for violating Section 269ST:

If any person violates the provisions of Section 269ST or accepts any payment in conflict with the provisions, then he shall be liable to pay a penalty of sum which is equivalent to the amount of receipt under Section 271DA.

 

But in case the person can prove that there was sufficient and bonafied reasons for the breach of the section, no penalty shall be imposed.

 

However, it is being said that a transaction amount which is equivalent to Rs2 Lakh or more is permitted while doing transaction only through the use of electronic clearing system (which includes debit/credit card/Net Banking/IMPS/UPI/NEFT/RTGS/BHIM) via bank or account payee cheque or demand draft. Nonetheless, it can be said that this is an initiative taken by the government, in order to promote and boost up the digital economy.

 

Exemptions to Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act: 

 

  • Though this section is not applicable to any receipt of amount by the government, any banking company, post office savings bank or co-operative bank, or any other person/receipts as may be notified.

 

  • Also, transactions referred to in section 269SS (attracted when we accept loan from any person) will be excluded from the scope of the new section 269ST.

 

Thus, we can say that from now onwards cash transactions must be done vigilantly. Accepting any amount which is more than Rs 2Lakhs, received in form of cash, can impose penalty. This is to make the citizens more concern that transaction of lump sum amount of money must be done by the mode of bank payments only. Now-a-days, income tax laws are getting more firm for the taxpayers so that unaccounted income can be taken count of. 

चाइल्ड कस्टडी की मामलों में बच्चे की इच्छा भी बहुत महत्वपूर्ण: सर्वोच्च न्यायलय
Child Custody

चाइल्ड कस्टडी की मामलों में बच्चे की इच्छा भी बहुत महत्वपूर्ण: सर्वोच्च न्यायलय

Case: Smriti Madan Kansagra v Perry Kansagra (Civil Appeal No. 3559/2020)

Section 17(3) of the Guardian & Wards Act 1890

17(3), the preferences and inclinations of the child are of vital importance for determining the issue of custody of the minor child. Section 17(5) further provides that the court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a guardian against his will".

Smriti Madan Kansagra v Perry Kansagra (Civil Appeal No. 3559/2020) केस जहाँ Guardian & Wards Act 1890  की धारा 17(3) को समक्ष रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने ये माना की चाइल्ड कस्टडी की मामले में नाबालिग की इच्छा भी सामान रूप से महत्वपूर्ण है तथा उसकी वरीयताओं पर भी विचार किया जाना चाहिए खास कर जब वो एक ऐसे उम्र में हो जहां उसमे अपनी पसंद और नापसंद की बारे में पर्याप्त जानकारी हो तथा वो भी अपनी वरीयता की अनुसार चुनाव करने योग्य हो.

सुप्रीम कोर्ट की तीन जज की बेंच जिसमे न्यायमूर्ति यु यु ललित, न्यायमूर्ति इंदु मल्होत्रा तथा न्यायमूर्ति हेमंत गुप्ता थे उन्होंने एक अत्यंत महत्वपूर्ण फैसले में एक नाबालिग बालक की कस्टडी उसके पिता को प्रदान की जो की नैरोबी, केन्या  में रहते है।

यह क़ानूनी लड़ाई लगभग दस साल चली जिसमे आदित्य (वह नाबालिग बालक जिसकी कस्टडी की लिए ये केस था) की कस्टडी की लिए उसके माता पिता ने परिवार कोर्ट से ले कर सुप्रीम कोर्ट तक ये कठिन कनूनी राह तय की तथा अंततः सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आदित्य की सम्पूर्ण कस्टडी उसके पिता को प्रदत्त की।

यह जानना भी बेहद रोचक है की इस लम्बी और कठिन क़ानूनी लड़ाई की दौरान माननीय न्यायमूर्ति आदित्य से व्यक्तिगत रूप से अपने चैम्बर में कई बार मिले और यह जानने की कोशिश करी की आदित्य की व्यक्तिगत राय क्या है तथा उसकी वरीयता में उसके माता या पिता में उसकी अधिक नज़दीकी किसके साथ है। इस प्रकार की अनौपचारिक बातचीत से माननीय न्यायमूर्ति संतुष्ट हुए की बालक की समझ और वरीयता में वो अपने पिता से ज्यादा करीब था तथा उसकी इच्छा अपने पिता के साथ रहने की थी।

माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपने फैसले में स्पष्ट तौर Guardian & Wards Act 1890 अधिनियम की धारा १७(३)  का उल्लेख किया तथा स्पष्ट किया की इस केस में बालक की भविष्य का फैसला इस प्रकार से होना चाहिए जो उसके भले के लिए सर्वोपरि हो तथा उसके सभी हितों की सम्पूर्ण रक्षा भी हो।

माननीय सुप्रीम को ने परिवार कोर्ट, हाई कोर्ट के फैसले तथा कौंसिलर की रिपोर्ट को भी बहुत गौर से परखा और पाया की बालक आदित्य ने अपने पिता की अधिक झुकाव दिखाया था। अपने फैसले को अंतिम रूप देते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने बालक की हितों को सर्वोपरि मानते हुए उसकी संगरक्षण की ज़िम्मेदारी उसके पिता को सौंप दी। सुप्रीम कोर्ट का पूरा फैसला यहाँ से पढ़े।:

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/8161/8161_2020_34_1501_24506_Judgement_28-Oct-2020.pdf

 

Daughters have the birthright in the ancestral Property: Supreme Court
Property

Daughters have the birthright in the ancestral Property: Supreme Court

With this Judgement now Daughter can have equal social status at par the son in the family and they are equal claimant in the paternal property.

Case:  CIVIL APPEAL NO.   DIARY NO.32601 OF 2018, VINEETA SHARMA  versus  RAKESH SHARMA & ORS.

Bench:             Hon’ble Justice Arun Mishra, S Abdul Nazeer & M R Shah

Key section:    Section 6 Hindu Succession Act 1956/ Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005,

Key Cases referred:    Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors. (2016) 2 SCC 36 (2016), Lokmani &  Ors. v. Mahadevamma & Ors., [S.L.P.(C) No.6840 of 2016], Balchandra v. Smt. Poonam & Ors. [SLP [C] No.35994/2015], Sistia Sarada Devi v. Uppaluri Hari Narayana & Ors. [SLP [C] No.38542/2016]

Summery of the Judgement:     

Supreme Court held that daughters will have equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family properties, irrespective of whether the father was alive or not on 9 September 2005, when an amendment came into force.

The bench decided that The provisions contained in substituted section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.”

Supreme Court also acknowledged the fact that due to the ambiguous legal interpretations & conflicting decision there are many cases pending before different high courts and lower courts & daughters should not be deprived of their rights of equality conferred upon them by section 6; directed that all such pending cases should be decided as far as possible within a time frame of six months.

Read the complete judgement from here:  https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/32601/32601_2018_33_1501_23387_Judgement_11-Aug-2020.pdf