How many judgments cite CIT v. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF)?

18 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) (263 ITR 487), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 269SS, Section 271D, Section 273B, Section 143(3), Section 156, Section 194IA.

CIT v. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF)

263 ITR 487High Court2003#6465 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) authority for?

Penalty under section 271D cannot be imposed if there is no finding that the loan transaction was not genuine or was a sham to cover unaccounted money.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) · section 269SS · section 271D · section 273B · genuine loan transaction · sham transaction · penalty for violation of section 269SS

Also reported as

133 Taxmann 426

Sections most often in play

Section 269SS Section 271D Section 273B Section 143(3)Section 156 Section 194IA Section 244A Section 250

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271d section 269t section 271e section 269s section 273 section 269ss section 271d section 271c section 269 section 273b agricultural income section 12aa

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF)

BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 54E

…n of loan was not genuine or it was a sham transaction to cover unaccounted money, no penalty could be imposed. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon a decision of Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF)[2003] 263 ITR 487/133 Taxman 426, Chamundi Granites (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT/Asstt. Director of Inspection v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258/122 Taxman 574 (SC)and M. Janardhana Rao v. Jt. CIT [2005] 273 ITR 50/142 Taxman 722 (SC). Bommarabettu Madhusudhana Acharya, Bengaluru Page 7 of 13 9. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the pa…

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Sri Nagaraj K. H., CAFor Respondent: Sri Subramaniam, JCIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 244ASection 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…n of loan was not genuine or it was a sham transaction to cover unaccounted money, no penalty could be imposed. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon a decision of Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF)[2003] 263 ITR 487/133 Taxman 426, Chamundi Granites (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT/Asstt. Director of Inspection v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258/122 Taxman 574 (SC)and M. Janardhana Rao v. Jt. CIT [2005] 273 ITR 50/142 Taxman 722 (SC). 9. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to a few provision…

M/S. SOFITRA IMPEX PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1749/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…: (i). CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., 285 ITR 221 (Mad.) (ii). CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, 315 ITR 163 (P&H) (iii). CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad.) (iv). CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog, 302 ITR 201 (Raj.) (v). CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria(HUF) 263 ITR 487 (Gau.) (vi). ADI vs. Kumari A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 (SC) (vii). Smt. Dimple Yadav Appeal No. 174 of 2015 dt. 21.08.2015(All). 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee clearly violated the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act and all the case laws relied by the ld…

M/S. SOFITRA IMPEX PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1748/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

SUSHILA BISHT,DEHRADUN vs. ADD. CIT RANGE-02, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3288/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Sushila Bisht, Vs. Addl Cit, Ajabpur Kalan, C-100, Shanti Range-02, Vihar, Phase-1, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajepb0822E

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sahani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parmod Verma, Sr. DR

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

…tion of any unaccounted income of any person getting converted in the garb of unsecured loan. We find that the ld AR had rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) reported in 263 ITR 487 wherein, it has been held as under:- “In view of the decision of the apex Court upholding the constitutional validity of s. 2965S, penalty under s. 271D could not be set aside on the ground that the provision of s. 2695S is ultra vires the Constitution; however, penalty was not leviable for the reason that the impugned transaction of loan finds…

SURYA KANT MEHTA,MIZORAM vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILCHAR RANGE, SILCHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/GTY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…to establish genuineness of transaction and reasonable cause for borrowing in cash. For such a proposition, we place reliance on the judicial precedent of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Gauhati in the case of CIT Vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) [2003] 263 ITR 487 (Gau) wherein it is held as under: “Keeping in view the object of introducing section 269SS, the Legislature has given discretion to the assessing authority under section 273B of Income-tax Act to levy the penalty as provided under section 271D of the Act or not. Under section 273B if the court finds that there was a reasonable and sufficient ca…

RAMACHANDRAN BANDHUVULA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 523/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ramachandran Vs. Income Tax Officer Bandhuvula, Hyderabad Ward 3(1) Pan:Aczpb3228M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15 Erroneous To The Extent It Is Prejudicial To The Appellant. 2. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Levy Of Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T Act. Without Giving Proper Opportunity. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Observed That The Transaction Of Sale Doesn'T Fall During The Previous Year Relevant For Assessment Year Under Consideration As The Registration Took Place On. 20.01.2016 Relevant For The Assessment Year 2016-17. Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Advocate Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271D

…ITA 523 of 2022 Ram Chandra आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ramachandran Vs. Income Tax Officer Bandhuvula, Hyderabad Ward 3(1) PAN:ACZPB3228M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue by: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 17/04/2023 Date of pronouncement: 19/04/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.08.2022 of the learne…

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

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

…ase of CIT Vs Indore JICE Academy for Excellence Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 31 Plastic Pvt. Ltd. 262 ITR 163, Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs Addl.CIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd-Trib) and Guwahati High Court in case of CIT Vs Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) 263 ITR 487 and also made a submission that Sec. 269SS of the Act is not applicable for a cash transaction between the Directors and Company, as the Directors are not any other person but they are the persons managing the whole affairs of the Company and also the Assessee Company is under the genuine belief that Sec. 269SS of the Act is not applicable for ru…

ACIT CENT.CIR-2(1) , , MUMBAI vs. M/S. LILAVATI KIRTILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1568/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Mehta

Section 12ASection 131Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1569/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) ACIT, CC-2(1), 804, 8th Floor, Old CGO Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Assessee Vs. M/s Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, A-791, Bandra Reclamation, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. PAN: AAATL1398Q ..... Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR Respondent by : Sh. Vijay Mehta Date of hearing : 31/05/2022 Date of pronouncement : 30/08/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These appeals by the Revenue are directed agains…

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

…ein are bonafide transactions carried out of trade exigency and therefore the provisions of section 271E are not attracted and would have relied on the following judicial precedents in this regard:- i. CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) reported in (2003) 263 ITR 487 (Gau) where it was held that penalty under s. 271D is not leviable where the transaction in question is found to be genuine; ii. Director of IT (Exemption) vs. All India Deaf & Dumb Society reported in (2005) 198 CTR (Del) 376, CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog reported in (2007) 211 CTR (Raj) 579; CIT vs. Raj Kumar Sharma reported in (2007) 294 IT…

SHRI P. SUNDARAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 2730/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2730/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. Shri. P. Sundaramurthy, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No.19, Mariamman Koil Street, Income Tax, Manjini Nagar, Pondicherry Range, Puducherry 605 003. Pondicherry. [Pan Aasps 2879P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V.M. Mahidar, IRS, JCIT

Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…y the appellant. Therefore, it is submitted that assessee had reasonable cause for repayment of the loan in cash and hence penalty u/s.271E of the Act is not warranted. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- 01. CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bojoria HUF, 263 ITR 487 (Gau) 02. CIT vs. Manoj Lalwani, 260 ITR 590 (Raj) 03. CIT vs. Parma Nand, 180 CTR 489 (Del) 04. Eatachi Agencies 248 ITR 525 (Bom) It is further submitted that when the genuineness of the transaction was accepted mere technical violation of law does not entail levy of penalty. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in…

SHRI SUNIL KUAMR,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 204/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 203 & 204/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2011-12 cuke Sunil Kumar, Addl. Commissioner of Vs. S/o- Shri Hoshiyar Singh, Income Tax, V.P. Mohan Pura, Tehsil- Jhunjhunu. Chirawa, Jhunjhunu. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AUHPK 7246 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Anil Sharma (CA) jktLo…

SHRI SUNIL KUAMR,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 44A

NAZIMA A KAZI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1408/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1408/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बिाम/ Nazima A Kazi, Jcit Rg 22(3) Flat No. B-1304, Plot -12, Navi Mumbai 400705 Shailesh Towers Chs, V. Sector 19A, Navi Mumbai-400706 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Alqpk5996E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. B.N. Rao & Ms. Vyoma Rao

For Appellant: Shri. B.N. Rao & Ms. Vyoma RaoFor Respondent: Shri. S.K. Mitra , DR

Section 253(3)Section 271DSection 276C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1408/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बिाम/ Nazima A Kazi, JCIT RG 22(3) Flat No. B-1304, Plot -12, Navi Mumbai 400705 Shailesh Towers CHS, v. Sector 19A, Navi Mumbai-400706 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: ALQPK5996E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. B.N. Rao & Ms. Vyoma Rao Revenue by : Shri. S.K. Mitra , DR सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 05.09.2018 घोषणा की त…

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

…y but in general law both are treated as one entity. In support of his contention, he relied on plethora 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 on…

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 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 reiterates the same. We notice in this backdrop of the facts that the lower authorities do not dispute assessee’s explanation qua genuineness of the impugned transactions. We however are of the opinion that the Shri Dilip Purshottambhai Patel vs. ACIT A.Y :- 2011-12 impugned penalty does not automatically flow in case of any contraven…

MAMATA PATRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-5, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 136/CTK/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Tigga, DR

Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.136/CTK/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mamata Patra, Vs. Jt. CIT, Range-5, W/o-Sri Apurba Kumar Patra, Bhubaneswar-75007 Plot No.292/Q, Behera Sahi, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar- 751012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AHCPP 1576 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri A.Tigga, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09/04…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर 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, Vithalwa…