CIT v. Idhayam Page 4 of 37 Publications

285 ITR 281Reported decision#24224 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Idhayam Page 4 of 37 Publications

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

…ssee-company is clearly not covered by the expression "any other person" occurring in section 269SS of the Act." - Wide Dillu Cine Enterprises (I)) Ltd 'Vs AddiCIV2oo2) 8o IT'D 484 (Hyd-Trib). 2.21 The Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs Idhayam Publications 285 ITR 281 held that the amount in cash brought into the assessee company by its promoter-director for a construction work was neither a loan nor deposit. Therefore, there was no violation of Sec. 269SS of the Act and as such penalty u/s 271D of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer is not justified. 2.22 The Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT Vs I…

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

…aging trustee, `any other person' denotes such persons who are not intimately or closely connected with the assessee. The appellant has relied upon CBDT Circular no. 387 dated 06.09.1984 as well as some case laws viz., CIT v Idhayam Page 4 of 37 Publications 285 ITR 281; CIT v Indore Plastics Pvt Ltd 262 ITR 163; to support its contentions. 5. However these arguments of the appellant did not find favor with the AO. He noted that the appellant had failed to show any urgency or any reasonable cause for accepting cash deposits in the bank account by the Managing trustee. He noted that the cash deposits of Rs 15,64…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahajan Industries P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1191/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271E

…. further submitted that even if any loan or deposits through current account, then, same are not in the category of loan or deposit as per the provision of the Comopanies Act, as upheld by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Idhayam Publication Ltd. 285 ITR 281 and Chhattisgarh High Court in case of CIT vs. Preeti Fuels and Flames Ltd. 238 CTR 226. 5. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. From the order of the lower authorities and submissions of both the parties, we find that as far as first transaction of Rs. 2.5 lakh is concerned, it is evident that it was not a loan…