Exemption from provision of section 269ST prohibiting cash receipt of Rs. 2 lakhs or more

Exemption from the provision of section 269ST prohibiting cash receipt of Rs. 2 lakhs or more

MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)

Notification No. 57 /2017

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2017

S.O. 2065(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of the proviso to section 269ST of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby specifies that the provision of section 269ST shall not apply to the following, namely:—

(a) receipt by a business correspondent on behalf of a banking company or co-operative bank, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India;

(b) receipt by a white label automated teller machine operator from retail outlet sources on behalf of a banking company or co-operative bank, in accordance with the authorisation issued by the Reserve Bank of India under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (51 of 2007);

(c) receipt from an agent by an issuer of pre-paid payment instruments, in accordance with the authorisation issued by the Reserve Bank of India under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (51 of 2007);

(d) receipt by a company or institution issuing credit cards against bills raised in respect of one or more credit cards;

(e) receipt which is not includible in the total income under clause (17A) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. The notification shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2017.

[F. No. 370142/10/2017-TPL]

SALIL MISHRA,
Director (Tax Policy & Legislation)

• Sale of flats in a real estate project held capital gains considering intention of assessee
• Interest liability recognised by journal entries at the close of year, can’t be termed as fictitious – ITAT
• Cash deposits in bank which were immediately transferred to other accounts – addition deleted
• ITAT disallows 6% for alleged bogus purchases being appropriate
• CBDT can’t restrict power of CIT u/s 119(2)(b) to condone delay beyond six years – High Court