CIT v. Deccan Designs (India) P Ltd.

347 ITR 580High Court2012#12665 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Deccan Designs (India) P Ltd.

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

…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; v. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Deccan Designs (India) P. Ltd. reported in (2012) 347 ITR 580 (Mad), where the Hon'ble Chennai High Court observed that where there was enough evidence offered by the assessee to justify cash transactions made with its sister concern, in absence of any contradictory evidence to the fact that the loan was taken Page 5 of 37 under conditions of business exigency, penalty u/s. 271D and 271E were held to be no…

Alipurduar Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Range-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1593/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

…nly a current account in nature and no interest is being charged for the above transaction—Hence, there is no violation of s. 269SS and levy of penalty is not called for” 5.2. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deccan Designs (India) (P) Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 580 (Mad) held as follows: “Penalty under s. 271D/271E—Leviability—Amount of Rs. 52.8 lakhs & 44.6 lakhs received in cash from sister concern—There being no contrary material, finding of the fact recorded by CIT(A) that amounts in cash were received by assessee from its sister concern with a view to save its existence and mainly for the purpose of d…

Sri Hiranmoy Gon, Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range - 9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chiranjit Goswami, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A “ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM ITA No. 143/Kol/2018 A.Y 201011 Sri Hiranmoy Gon Vs. J.C.I.T, Range9, Kolkata PAN: ADOPG9812 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Chiranjit Goswami, FCA, ld.AR Respondent by : Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 02092019 \घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 0811 2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 201011, is directed against the order dated 2811201…

Suparshwa Constructions, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6, Mumbai

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

ITA 3083/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Haria (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 279S

…. 2. CIT v. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog [(2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj.)] 3. CIT v/s Sree Krishna Promoters & Builders – [2011] 16 taxmann.com 138 (Karnataka). 7 ITA No. 3083 & 3084 Mum 2014-M/s Suparshwa Constructions 4. CIT v. Deccan Designs (India) P.Ltd. [2012] 347 ITR 580 (Madras). 5. K.K. Enterprises v. JCIT [(2014) 41 taxmann.com 235 (Mumbai-Trib.)]. 11. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. During the hearing of these appeals on 09.01.2018, the ld. DR for the revenue was directed to call the record of assessment to ascertain as to why the…

Mrc Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 3741/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, V.P. & Hon‟Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3741/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Bist & Shri

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

…estion of law arises for consideration of this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the above tax case. No costs. 14. Further, the decision passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vrs. Deccan Design (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 81 CCH 280 Chen HC (2012) 347 ITR 580 (Mad), wherein it was held that when the creditors and debtors are genuine, that the transactions were genuine, that the money was withdrawn from the current account on OD facility of the sister concern and such transaction were meant for payment of wages and to save the sick company from its closure the other findings in the remand report cannot…

Tej Narayan Agarwal, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Range-8, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 563/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR

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

…is children to accommodate than in obtaining DD’s without charges and cannot be considered as taking of loan or repayment of loan in cash. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, i.e. CIT vs. Deccan Designs (India) P Ltd reported in 347 ITR 580 (Mad) and also in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. All India Deaf and Dumb Society reported in 283 ITR 113 (Del) are to the effect that where the transactions are genuine and enough reasons are offered by the assessee to justify the cash transaction, the penalty is not leviable both u/s 271D Page 4 of 5 ITA Nos 1378 of 2015 a…

Tej Narayan Agarwal, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Range-8, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1378/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Canara Housing Development Co

ITA/382/2009HC Karnataka18 Aug 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 269Section 271

…mation letters had also been furnished, the benefit of section 273 B of the Act was granted to the assessee. In the other case relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee, being Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Deccan Designs (India) Pvt Ltd – (2012) 347 ITR 580, the case was of repayment of loan for payment of wages, etc., which was on behalf of a sister concern to save the company from its closure. The transactions, made in cash, were found to be undertaken out of business exigencies. The facts in the present case are different from the facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel…