CIT(A). (i) CIT v. Sainy Medical Store

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

…f the opinion that levy of penalty U/s 271D was unwarranted. When the loans received from the sister concerns have not been doubted by the AO, then provisions of section 271D are not applicable as held by Mumbai ITAT in the case of Dr. Deepak Muchala Vs. ITO (58 TTJ 524). In view of the above, it is not proper to infer that utilization of money from one firm by another firm or repayment thereof constitutes deposit or loan so as to attract the provisions of Section 269SS/269T Accordingly, it is held that the transactions between sister concerns & the assessee can't partake of the nature of either deposit or loan.…

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

…f the opinion that levy of penalty U/s 271D was unwarranted. When the loans received from the sister concerns have not been doubted by the AO, then provisions of section 271D are not applicable as held by Mumbai ITAT in the case of Dr. Deepak Muchala Vs. ITO (58 TTJ 524). In view of the above, it is not proper to infer that utilization of money from one firm by another firm or repayment thereof constitutes deposit or loan so as to attract the provisions of Section 269SS/269T Accordingly, it is held that the transactions between sister concerns & the assessee can't partake of the nature of either deposit or loan.…

Chetndas Sablani, Burhapur vs. The JCIT, Khanwa

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

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

…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 the reasons for taking loan in violation of provi…

Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Surat vs. Add. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Surat

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

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

…nsequences of Section 269SS of the Act. To Sh. Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel Vs Addl.CIT & 1 Anr support such view, the 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 dec…

Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Surat vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Surat

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

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

…nsequences of Section 269SS of the Act. To Sh. Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel Vs Addl.CIT & 1 Anr support such view, the 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 dec…