1. In Suresh Chand Talera vs. Union of India (2006) 282 ITR 341 (MP) it was held that the agricultural income of minor has to be included with the income of the parent for the purpose of computing the rate of tax. This implies that irrespective of whether the minor has any income chargeable to tax or not or the parent has any agricultural income or not, the agricultural income of the minor has to be aggregated for computing tax in the hands of the parent.
2. Income Tax Act contains numerous penal provisions and one among them is penalty for accepting loan or deposit otherwise than by account payee crossed cheque or bank draft. In CIT vs. Standard Brands Ltd (2006) 285 ITR (Del) the assessee received cash loan, which was treated as undisclosed income in the assessment. Again penalty proceedings were initiated for acceptance of such cash loan for levy of penalty u/s 271 D. The Court held once the loan amount is treated as undisclosed income of the assessee, it could not be subjected to penal proceedings applicable for the loan transactions.
