Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 269SS, Section 271D, Section 273B, Section 143(3), Section 271E, Section 153A.

Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi

Q: How many judgments cite Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi?

61 judgments on BharatTax cite Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi (255 ITR 258), spanning 2012 to 2026.

255 ITR 258Supreme Court of India2002#1867 most cited

What is Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi authority for?

The Supreme Court upholds the constitutional validity of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prohibits certain cash loans and deposits. This ruling is foundational for penalties under Section 271D and considering exemptions under Section 273B.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi · A.B. Shanthi SC · constitutional validity Section 269SS · penalty under Section 271D · Section 269SS Income Tax Act · Section 271D penalty cash transaction · Section 273B penalty waiver · validity of provisions 269SS · taking cash loan penalty · accepting cash deposit penalty · 255 ITR 258

Sections most often in play

Section 269SS Section 271D Section 273B Section 143(3)Section 271E Section 153A Section 269T Section 2(14)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271d section 269s section 269t section 271bb section 272aa section 271fb penalty under section 271e section 271e section 273 section 272bb section 269ss section 271ca

Judgments citing Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi

Devinder Gupta & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. JCIT Range-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5394/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…gwati Prasad Bajoria HUF, (2003) 183 CTR 484 (Gauhati) wherein the Hon’ble Court took note of the object of introducing of Section 269SS as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi, (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC) and held that the legislature has given discretion to the authority in the matter of levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that where a reasonable cause exists for transactions covered under Section 269SS, the penalty shall not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Drawing parallel, same proposition…

M/S Lok Vikas Housing Funds Ltd.( Now Lok Vikas Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. The Addl.CIT Range-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/JPR/1999[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 254(1)Section 269DSection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…le cause for the said failure as envisaged under s. 269SS of the Act. While examining the constitutional validity of s. 269SS, the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. Director of Inspection (Inv.) vs. Kum. A.B. Shanthi (2002) 174 CTR (SC) 513 : (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC) has observed as under : " It is important to note that another provision, namely, s. 273B was also incorporated which provides that notwithstanding any thing contained in the provisions of s. 271D, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provision if he proves…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahavir Build Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1405/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Gunajjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 5509/Mum/2013) - Circular No. 387 dated 06.07.1984, issued by the CBDT the purpose and scope of introducing the section 269SS in the Act has been explained which read as under 146 ITR (Statute) 162. - ADI vs. Kum. A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 5. However, not being convinced, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of INR 46,50,71,683/- under Section 271D of the Act holding as under: “The Assessee could not justify that the repayment / acceptance of loan/ deposits are merely transactions with one party with whom repayment and acceptance is involved. The case before the Hon'ble Bombay Hi…

Baroda Greases & Auto Care Products Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Addl.CIT, Range1(1), Baroda

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

ITA 1184/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1184/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Baroda Greases & Autocare Addl. Cit., Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Range-1(1), 4, Samipya Flat, Vadodara. Opp. Verai Mataji Temple, Urmi-Dinesh Mill Road, Akota, Gujarat.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…e appeal after hearing the learned DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 7. We have heard the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue and perused the materials available on record. In the case of Asstt. Director of Inspection v. Kumari A.B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "The undue hardship of the provisions of Section271D, which replaced Section 276DD constituting the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS into an offence, is substantially mitigated by the inclusion of Section 273B providing that if there was a genuine and bona fide transaction and if for…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 2015-16

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1233/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…it is covered in any exemption listed in provisions of section 269SS of the IT Act. 12. He further stated that the imposition of penalty u/s 271D of IT Act, 1961, in this case is supported by various judicial pronouncements. In the case of Kum. A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 (SC)(2002) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the object of introducing section 269SS is to ensure that a taxpayer is not allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money, or if he has given some false entries in his accounts, he shall not escape by giving false explanation for the same. Similar views have also been expressed in the foll…

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 Karnataka Agro Chemicals Vs. The Additional Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, No.43C, Hoskote Industrial Area, Range 4(1), Hoskote, Bengaluru – 562 114. Bengaluru. PAN: AAACK 5533F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri SreeHariKutsa, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal…

DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Lodha Developers Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3113/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…ow cause notice was issued to the assessee and the Ld. AR of the assessee attended and filed the relevant information as called for. The assessee has filed written submissions before ACIT – 7 and the same is reproduced below: - “a) In the case of A. B. Shanti 255 ITR 258 the Supreme Court while deciding the constitutional validity of Sec. 269SS/269T held that the objects of these sections are to defeat the introduction of unaccounted money by making false entries or false explanations, both during the course of search and seizure and otherwise. The court had also held that before levying penalty under these provi…

DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Konwn As to M/S.Lodha Developers Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3047/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

Income Tax Officer- 2(1), Ujjain vs. Smt. Saroj Thakur, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 539/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…ance is placed on the following judicial precedents wherein it is held that no penalty can be imposed u/s 271D as no doubt has been raised on the genuineness of the transaction – Smt. Saroj Thakur Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kum. A. B. Shanthi - (2002] 255 ITR 258 - order pronounced on 03.02.2002 Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Maheshwari Nirman Udyog – (2008) 170 taxman 502 – order pronounced on 26.07.2007 Hon'ble Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT (TM) in the case of Jitu Builders Private Limited - [2010] 124 ITD 134 - order pronounced on 16.07.2009 Hon'ble Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Kame…

Auto Fuel Centre, Durgapur vs. J.C.I.T., Circle-1, Durgapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Auto Fuel Centre Vs. Jcit, Circle-1, Dgp C/O. Sn Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seben Brothers” Lodge, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S Chinsurah, Dist- Hooghly. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfa8826F (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…ven our careful consideration to the submissions made on either side. This court in CIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. [2006] 283 ITR 329 (Mad), following the decision of the apex court in Asst. Director of Inspection (Invst.) v. Kum. A. B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258, held that if there was genuine and bona fide transaction and the tax payer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to levy penalty. In the instant case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate T…

Deepak Sales & Properties Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O.WD.9(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6304/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri G.S. Pannu (Am), Joginder Singh (Jm) & B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 255(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 68

…nnot be imposed u/s 271D of the Act. The Division Bench was of the view that the decision so rendered by G bench in the case of Zodiac Developers P Ltd (supra) is directly contrary to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kum. A.B.Shanti (255 ITR 258), wherein it was observed that existence of genuine or bonafide transaction is not sufficient to attract relief u/s 273B of the Act and it has to be established that on account of some bonafide reasons the assessee could not get loan/deposit by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. The Division Bench has expressed the view that the pr…

Shree Dilip Purshottambhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Baroda

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1925/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri S.S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1925/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/A.Y. 2011-12 Shri Dilip Purshottambhai Patel, Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Prop. M/S. D P Patel Engineering Income-Tax & Contractor, Range-3, Baroda 26, Kamudi Soc. Opp. S.T. Depot, Dabhoi, Vadodara Pan: : Adupp 6030 A अपीलाथ!/ (Appellant) "# यथ!/ (Respondent) By Assessee(S) : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar By Revenue : Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/04/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per S.S. Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against Cit(A)-5, Vadodara’S Order Dated 11.04.2016 Passed In Case No.Cab/5- 313/2014-15 Affirming Assessing Officer’S Action Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,65,000/- In His Order Dated 24.07.2014 In Proceeding U/S 271E Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 269TSection 271E

…on the other hand supports the above extracted finding of the learned CIT(A) confirming the penalty. 4. We notice in this backdrop of the case that the hon’ble apex court in the case of Asst Director of Inspection (Investigation). vs. Kum A B Shanthi, (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC), explained the object of introducing section 269SS (on identical lines) to be that of eradication of evil practice of making false entries in account books followed by consequent explanation qua the same. The hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s judgment in case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF), [2003] 263 ITR 487 (Guj.) also reiterat…

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gujarat Gaurav Inn Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4406/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Cit-12(2)(2), M/S Gujrat Gaurav Inn Hotels Room No. 145, 1St Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Raj Nagar, W.E. Highway, Opp. Bhavan M.K. Road, Raj Nagar, Before Checknaka, Mumbai-400020 Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan No. Aaacg4095J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…ey in cash to the director who had repaid the bank loans on urgency basis out of their personal source of funds; D. The genuineness of the transactions is not doubted in assessment. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in ADIT (Inv.) v. Kum. A.B. Shanti 255 ITR 258 (SC), CIT v. Dimpal Yadav/Akhilesh Kumar Yadav 379 ITR 177 (All-HC), CIT v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. 345 ITR 270 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Shree Ambica Flour Mills Corporation 76 CCH 554 (Guj-HC), CIT v. M. Ramakrishnan 63 taxmann.com 321 (Mad-HC) and CIT v. T. Perumal (Indl.) 53 taxmann.com 17 (Mad-HC). 6. We have heard the rival submissio…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Dr. Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3294/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3294/Mds/2016, 1761/Mds/2017 & 1762/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. Dr.Ganesan’S Hitech The Deputy Commissioner Of Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., Income Tax, No.1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 010. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aadcd7458H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Deepa, CAFor Respondent: 20.09.2017

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…y the appellant. To that extent the ratio in the relied upon case in 285 ITR 221 would apply. Further, in view of the import of the legislation no penalty would be leviable as the explanation tendered neither false etc in terms of ratio in ADIT v. A B Shanthi 255 ITR 258 (SC). Finally penalty u/s 271E, also mandates application of mind and reading in conjunction with the provisions of 8.273B with regard to the existence of 'reasonable cause' attendant to the transaction. As regards the applicability of the ratio relied upon by the AO in Grihalakshmi Vision v. Addl.CIT[2015] 63 taxrnann.com 196E (Kerala) it is see…

M/S Pradhan Perfumers, Bangalore vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1817/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT (DR)

Section 269Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271ESection 273B

…no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee for any violation referred to under section 269T of the Act, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ADIT Vs. Kumari A.R. Shanti (2008) 255 ITR 258 (SC), it has been held that the main object of section 269SS was to curb the menace of false entries in the books and where the transactions are genuine, the provisions of section 26955 and 269TT are not attracted. The courts have taken lenient views on the pena1ty u/s 271E of the Act subject to of some reasonable cause. In the case of Commission…

M/S. Loyal Bankers, Pathanamthitta vs. The Adcit, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 137/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 269SSection 271D

…ITA Nos 136&137/Coch/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH KOCHI BEFORE S/SHRI P K BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT & GEORGE GEORGE K, JM ITA Nos 136 &137/Coch/2016 (Asst Year 2006-07) M/s. Loyal Bankers, Vs The Addl. Commr of Income Tax Cherukole, Kozhencherry, Thiruvalla Range, Thiruvalla. Pathanamthitta. ( Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAAFL 9068K Assessee By Smt. Mekhala M. Benny, Adv. Revenue By Sh Shantham Bose, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 03/10/2017 Date of pronouncement 05/10/2017 ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K,JM: These appeals, at the instance of the assessee, are directed against two orders…

M/S. Loyal Bankers, Pathanamthitta vs. The Adcit, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 136/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 269SSection 271D

Boomi Bottling Gas, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 268/CHNY/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.Ponraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jt. CIT

Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 272ASection 272B

…ssue relevant, while considering the validity of the levy of penalty, is the reason for having accepted a loan or deposit in contravention of the provision, since upheld as constitutionally valid (Asst. Director of Inspection (Inv.) v. Kum. A.B.Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258 (SC)). Reference in this context may be made to the decision in K.V. George v. CIT [2014] 102 DTR 167 (Ker), upholding the order by the tribunal rejecting that contention relying on the decision in Kum. A.B.Shanthi (supra). Why, there are decisions galore in the context of s. 40A(3), stipulating the condition of payment - for its deduction in com…

Shiv Sharan Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 2154/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/2154/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Shiv Sharan Trading Pvt. Ltd. Acit-Range-4(3) Shop No.3, Building No.136, Mumbai-400 058. Vs. Kalbadevi, Vithalwadi, Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aajcs 9593 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Atul Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 03.01.2013 Of The Cit(A)-8,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year.Assessee Is Engaged In Renting Out Of Various Commercial Properties.The Return Of Income Was Processed On 23-07-2009.Assessment U/S.143 (3)R.W.S. 147 Of The Act,Was Completed On 30.09.2011,Assessing Its Income At Rs.7,31, 501/-.

For Appellant: Shri Atul MehtaFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271D

…diac Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.31/M/2011 dt.10.10.2014); Sanju Kothari (ITA No.3790/M/2013 dt.04.3.2016); M/s. R.K. & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 2218/M/12 dt.31.7.2013); Mrs. Rupali R. Desai (088ITD76);Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria(HUF) (263ITR487) and Kum A.B. Shanthi (255 ITR 258). The Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the FAA. 3 2154/M/13-shivsharan trdg. 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that in the case of Triumph International Finance (I.) Ltd.(345 ITR 270),the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has discussed the issue and has held as under: 23. The expressio…

DCIT CC 1, Mumbai vs. Sanju Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3790/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Anant PaiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

…d. He submitted, in terms of section 273B, if assessee shows reasonable cause for not imposing penalty, the Assessing Officer should not impose penalty. For such proposition, assessee relied upon the following decisions:– i) ADIT v/s Kum. A.B. Shanti, [2000] 255 ITR 258 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Triumph International Finance Ltd, [2002] 345 ITR 270 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Bombay Conductors & Electricals Ltd., [2008] 361 ITR 328 (Guj.); and 7 Shri Sanju Kothari iv) Hindustan Steel Ltd. v/s State of Orissa, [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC). 8. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on rec…