370 ITR 313 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers

371 ITR 408High Court2015#10567 most cited

What is 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers authority for?

Amounts received from partners or sister concerns may be treated as loans or deposits, and cannot be presumed otherwise without supporting documentation. The decisions in CIT v. T.Perumal and CIT v. Muthoot Financiers were based on the specific documents before the courts.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Muthoot Financiers · CIT v. T.Perumal · loans or deposits · partners · sister concerns · cash credits · Section 269SS · documentation · income tax

Judgments citing 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers

DCIT Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Hotel Sukhamaya Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…t be treated as loans or deposits. In support of this contention, counsel for the assessee relied on judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers and another [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Delhi). Reading of these judgments show that these cases were decided on the basis of the documents that were available before the Court. On the other hand, insofar as these cases are concerned, though it is the admitted case that amounts were received from partners and other sister concerns of the assessee and were repaid, there is no material…

DCIT Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Hotel Sukhamaya Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…t be treated as loans or deposits. In support of this contention, counsel for the assessee relied on judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers and another [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Delhi). Reading of these judgments show that these cases were decided on the basis of the documents that were available before the Court. On the other hand, insofar as these cases are concerned, though it is the admitted case that amounts were received from partners and other sister concerns of the assessee and were repaid, there is no material…

Maqtro Pictures, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 999/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 68

…e penalty levied and confirmed in first appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. Maqtro Pictures v. ITO 3. The assessee’s only explanation before us, as indeed at the earlier stages, relying upon on the decision in CIT v. Muthoot Financiers [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Del) and CIT v. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) [2008] 304 ITR 172 (Raj), besides others by the Tribunal, was that a partnership firm is not a juristic person, much less independent and apart from its’ partners, being only a compendious name for the partners constituting it for the time being. Credits in their accounts cannot, therefore, be regar…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Valsad Circle, Valsad vs. M/S.Pramukh Infrastructure, Valsad

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 205/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Pramukh Infrastructure, Commissioner Of Income C/O. Shri Bipinchandra B. Patel, Vs Tax, Pramukh Prasad, N.H.No.8, Link Valsad Circle, Valsad. Road, Dungri, Valsad. Pan: Aaifp 6738 J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) The Assistant Pramukh Infrastructure, Commissioner of Income C/o. Shri Bipinchandra B. Patel, Vs Tax, Pramukh Prasad, N.H.No.8, Link Valsad Circle, Valsad. Road, Dungri, Valsad. PAN: AAIFP 6738 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri P.M.Jagasheth – CA Revenue by Ms. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR Date of hearing 30/12/2021 30/12/2021 Date of pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Re…

The Mamurpur Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 38, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1371/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…In support of this contention, counsel for the assessee relied on judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and 18 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers and another [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Delhi).Reading of these judgments show that these cases were decided on the basis of the documents that were available before the Court. On the other hand, insofar as these cases are concerned, though it is the admitted case that amounts were received from partners and other sister concerns of the assessee and were repaid, there is no material w…

The Mamurpur Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 38, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1370/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…In support of this contention, counsel for the assessee relied on judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and 18 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers and another [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Delhi).Reading of these judgments show that these cases were decided on the basis of the documents that were available before the Court. On the other hand, insofar as these cases are concerned, though it is the admitted case that amounts were received from partners and other sister concerns of the assessee and were repaid, there is no material w…

Surendra Enginering Corporation, Mumbai vs. JCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed

ITA 2386/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 2(23)Section 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.2386/Mum./2017 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Surendra Engineering Corporation 1, Jaitirath Mansion 6A, Barrack Road ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 020 PAN – AAAFS2803B v/s Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–17(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh Revenue by : Shri V. Vinod Kumar Date of Hearing – 12.09.2019 Date of Order – 05.12.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order d…

M/S M.D.Educational Society, Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT (Exemption), Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5000/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T.R. Talwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)

…society was under a bona fide belief that this transaction is not in the nature of loan or deposit as repayment of cash on monthly installments is not prohibited by law. In support, he relied upon the following judgments. 1. CIT vs. Muthoot Fiancers, (2015) 371 ITR 408 (Delhi0 2. CIT vs. T Perumal (Indl.) (2015) 370 ITR 313 (Mad.) 3. CIT vs. Panchsheel Overseas Association (2017) 395 ITR 380 (Guj.) 5 I.T.A. No.5000/DEL/2016 7. On the other hand, learned Department Representative submitted that, penalty u/s.271D and 271E has no relevance to assessment proceedings as both are independent and in support her co…

Shorewala Overseas, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 5634/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Repudaman Thakur, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 5634/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shorewala Overseas, Vs Income Tax Officer, 9, Lancers Road, B.D. Estate, Ward-47(1), Timparpur, Delhi-110054 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABLFS0193A S. A. No. 514/Del/2016 (In ITA No. 5634/Del/2016 Asst. Year: 2012-13) Shorewala Overseas, Vs Income Tax Officer, 9, Lancers Road, B.D. Estate, Ward-47(1), Timparpur, Delhi-110054 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABLFS0193A Assessee by : Sh. Repudaman Thakur, FCA Revenue by : Sh. Bedobani Cha…

ITO, Ward-3(1), Asansol vs. M/S Ranjit Jewellers, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2425/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2016AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…t be treated as loans or deposits. In support of this contention, counsel for the assessee relied on judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers and another [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Delhi). Reading of these judgments show that these cases were decided on the basis of the documents that were available before the Court. On the other hand, insofar as these cases are concerned, though it is the admitted case that amounts were received from partners and other sister concerns of the assessee and were repaid, there is no material…

370 ITR 313 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers (371 ITR 408) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax