KARNATAKA AGROCHEMICAL PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

ITA 98/BANG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 April 2022AY 2013-1437 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the transactions were undertaken for business expediency and involved the director, thus not falling under the purview of Section 269T. It also found reasonable cause for the non-compliance, considering the nature of the transactions.

What were the facts?

The assessee received cash loans from its director and repaid them in cash. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271E for non-compliance with Section 269T, which mandates repayment by account payee cheque or draft.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271E is leviable for cash repayment of loans to a director when there is reasonable cause and the transaction is for business expediency.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271E,Section 269T,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(30)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 30.03.2022Pronounced: 29.04.2022

Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 17.12.2021 for the assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:-

“1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), passed under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case.

2.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating all the submissions made on the facts a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271E

All 968 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →