Balaji Traders v. Dy CIT

78 ITD 368Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2001#21377 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing Balaji Traders v. Dy CIT

Chetndas Sablani, Burhapur vs. The JCIT, Khanwa

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 116/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanichetandas Sablani Jcit M.B. 18, New Indira Colony Khandwa Vs. Burhanpur

Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…ncy and loan taken from a farmer which falls in the exception provided u/s 269SS and consequently, the penalty Page 2 of 4 Chetandas Sablani Page 3 of 4 levied by the AO is not justified. He has relied upon the following decisions: 1.Balaji Traders vs. DCIT 78 ITD 368 (Pune) 2. Dr. Deepak Muchala vs. ITO 58 TTJ 524 3. Rajiana Kheti Stor vs. ITO 20 SOT 3 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that no explanation was furnished by the assessee before ld. CIT(A), therefore, at the most the matter may be set aside to the record of the CIT(A) for giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assesse to explain t…

M/S H. K. Infraventure Pvt. Ltd, Varansi vs. Joint. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Varansi

ITA 46/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Viswakarma,CITD.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…),Appellate order passed by ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Prabhavshali Chit Fund Company Private Limited v. CIT, reported in (1994) 49 ITD 566(Del-trib.)and Appellate order passed by ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Balaji Traders v. DCIT, reported in (2001)78 ITD 368(Pune-trib.). 8.We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws. We have observed from assessment order passed in quantum that there was search and seizure operations carried on by Revenue u/s 132 of the 1961 Act on 05.12.2013 in the case of Mr. Hemant Kumar Sindhi , Dinesh Kumar Pahuja Group, resi…

Smt Anita Hati, Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-1, Kolkata, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271E

…ade by the assessee was not found acceptable by the AO. According to him, the case of the assessee was not covered by any of the exemptions provided in section 269T of the Act. Relying the decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Balaji Traders vs Dy CIT 78 ITD 368, he held that the language of section 269T was unambiguous and even the genuine transaction of loans and deposits were covered under section 269T. He held that there existed no reasonable cause for repayment of loans by the assessee in 3 I.T.A. No. 921/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009 -10 Smt. Anita Hati cash and consequently penalty u/s 271E was…

Smt Parinita Hati Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-1, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 920/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 920/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Parinita Hati Chowdhury.............................……………………………………………Appellant C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co. Chartered Accountants, Diamond Chambers Unit Iii, 4Th Floor, Suit No. 4G 4, Chowringhee Lane Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Adlpr2179P] J.C.I.T., Range-1………………………………………………................................................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Khadinamore G.T. Road, P.O. Chinsurah Hooghly - 712101 Appearances By: Shri V.N. Purohit, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 10.03.2015 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 53,000/- Imposed By The Ao Under Section 271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Partner In The Partnership Firm Of M/S. S. Hati. As Noticed By The Ao During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Of The Said Firm For A.Y. 2009-10, Loan Of Rs. 53,000/- Taken By The Assessee From The Said Firm Was Repaid In Cash. Since There Was A Violation Of Section 269T Of The Act

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271E

…ade by the assessee was not found acceptable by the AO. According to him, the case of the assessee was not covered by any of the exemptions provided in section 269T of the Act. Relying the decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Balaji Traders vs Dy CIT 78 ITD 368, he held that the language of section 269T was unambiguous and even the genuine transaction of loans and deposits were covered under section 269T. He held that there existed no reasonable cause for repayment of loans by the assessee in cash and consequently penalty u/s 271E was leviable. Accordingly, 3 I.T.A. No. 920/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2…