420 (P&H) (ii) Dr. Deepak Muchhala Vs ITO 58 TTJ 524 (Bom) (iii) CIT v. Maa Khodiyar Construction

50 TTJ 130Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#15988 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 271D Section 271E

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271d section 269s section 271e section 269ss section 271d section 269 penalty under section 271(1)(c)section 271(1)genuineness of the transaction section 26 section 271 section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing 420 (P&H) (ii) Dr. Deepak Muchhala Vs ITO 58 TTJ 524 (Bom) (iii) CIT v. Maa Khodiyar Construction

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…vedi & Pithisariya Vol. 5- Pg.5732 & 5735), which provides that these provisions were intended only to discourage transactions of black money. The said circular has been discussed in detail and relied upon in various cases. Kindly refer Veer Sales Corporation 50 TTJ 130, Chandra Cement Ltd. v/s DCIT 23 TW 160 (JP), Kalyan Mal Harakchand v/s DCIT, Sh. Jagdish Sharan Agrawal v/s Ad.CIT 30 TW 185 (JP) and Choudhary Co. Bhujiyawala 89 TTTJ 357. Otherwise, a provision should be interpreted keeping in view the intent and object the enactment. Admittedly here in the present admittedly the person is identified and assess…

PRAVINABEN PRAVINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ADD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 1(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 302/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Adgpp 4549 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Cdopp 3300 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 69Section 69C

…assessee relied on the following case laws before ld CIT(A). (i) CIT Vs Sainy Medical Store 277 ITR 420 (P&H) (ii) Dr. Deepak Muchhala Vs ITO 58 TTJ 524 (Bom) (iii) CIT Vs Maa Khodiyar Construction 45 taxmann.com 566 (Guj) (iv) Veer Sales Corporation Vs ACIT 50 TTJ 130 (Ahd.) (v) Shreenath Builders Vs DCIT (2000) 111 Taxman 142 (Ahd.) (vi) CIT Vs Sree Krishna Promoters & Builders (2011) 16 taxmann.com 138 (Kar.). 5. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) simply noted that the decision relied by the assessee are on different facts. The ld AR for the assessee submits that genuineness of the trans…

PRAVINBHAI KESHAVBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 1(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 69Section 69C

SHRI MANOJ BHAWARLAL DHOOT ,BAGALKOT vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAPURA RANGE , VIJAPURA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Gokul L. Malpani, C AFor Respondent: Dr. Sandeep Goel, Addl.CIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

…ora of decisions as follows : 1. CIT Vs. Balaji Traders 303 ITR 312 (Mad) 2. Chandra Cement Ltd. Vs. DCIT 68 TTJ 35. 3. CIT Vs. Bhagwati Praad Bajoria – HUF 263 ITR 487 4. CIT Vs. Natvarlal Purshottama Parekh 303 ITR 5 (Guj) 5. Vir Sales Corporation Vs. ACIT 50 TTJ 130 (Ahd) 6. CIT Vs. Manoj Lalwani 269 ITR 590 (Jai) 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether the penalty under provisions of Section 271E is leviable hav…

BHOPAL SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. JT. CIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri F. Rehman Khan (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Mallik (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…was some contravention at all (assuming it was so). Thus, there did exist a reasonable cause in terms of S. 273 B. Kindly refer Motilal Padampat Singhania 118 ITR 326(SC) followed in Veer Sales ITA 268/JP/2017_ 6 Bhopal Singh Shekhawat Vs Jt.CIT Corporation 50 TTJ 130 at 153, Dillu Cine Enterprises Ltd. v/s Ad. CIT 80 ITD 484 (Hyd.). In Dr. Deepak Muchala vs. ITO (1997) 58 TTJ 0524 (Mum.) "Penalty under s. 271D—Leviability—Assessee, a dentist by profession, is not expected to be well-versed with fast changing laws—Further, he borrowed money for paying installments of his flat and also for purchasing certain it…

MARTIN ALEX CORREA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2507/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआमकय अऩीर सं. / Ita No.2507/Mum./2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007–08) Shri Martin Alex Correa 3/7, Joseph Cottage …….………. अऩीरधथी / Chincholi, Bunder Road Appellant Malad (W), Mumbai 400 064 Pan – Aagpc1700M V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Range–24(4), Bandra (E), Mumbai Respondent ननधधारयती की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah यधजस्व की ओय से / Revenue By : Shri Vivek Batra सुनवधई की तधयीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing – 24.09.2015 Date Of Order – 09.10.2015

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra

Section 269SSection 271D

…, is a distant relative of the assessee, therefore, the transaction between relatives do not invite the provisions of sections 269SS and 271D of the Act. For this purpose, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in Vir Sales Corporation, 50 TTJ 130 (Ahd.). Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that when the assessee is able to show reasonable cause for accepting the amount in cash and the transaction is bona fide, no penalty is imposable. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd., 301 ITR 328 (Guj.). 5. The learne…