CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd.

285 ITR 221High Court2006#1853 most cited

What is CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd. authority for?

Money received by a company as share application money from directors or shareholders, especially when no interest is charged and held in a current account, does not constitute a 'loan or deposit' under Section 269SS. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under Section 271D for such transactions.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd. · Section 269SS · Section 271D · penalty levy · share application money · loan definition · deposit definition · cash transactions · directors' advances · contravention of Section 269SS

Also reported as

163 Taxmann 265

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 269SSSection 269STSection 271DSection 68

Issues it is cited on

section 269tsection 269ssection 269sssection 271dsection 269levy of penaltysection 26genuineness of the transactionreasonable causesection 271section 27undisclosed income

Judgments citing CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd.

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 633/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2014-15 M/s RMG Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of No.38, Jeenis Road, v. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAACR 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 632/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2014-15 M/s RMG Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of No.38, Jeenis Road, v. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAACR 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 631/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2014-15 M/s RMG Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of No.38, Jeenis Road, v. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAACR 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 630/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2014-15 M/s RMG Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of No.38, Jeenis Road, v. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAACR 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 629/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2014-15 M/s RMG Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of No.38, Jeenis Road, v. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAACR 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 628/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2014-15 M/s RMG Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of No.38, Jeenis Road, v. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAACR 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Range VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 196/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…9SS is to stop the circulation of unaccounted cash or introduction of unaccounted monies into the books by the way of loans which is not the case in the case of the assessee. He further relied on the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. 163 Taxmann 265 wherein it was held that the payment of monies into current account and withdrawals of monies from the current account in the presence of any other evidence cannot attract provisions of Section 269SS. Further reliance was also placed in the case of S.R. Associated Construction Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)- ITA No. 209 & 210/Kol/2013 wherein it w…

Sh. Ramneek Sehgal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Range VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 195/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…9SS is to stop the circulation of unaccounted cash or introduction of unaccounted monies into the books by the way of loans which is not the case in the case of the assessee. He further relied on the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. 163 Taxmann 265 wherein it was held that the payment of monies into current account and withdrawals of monies from the current account in the presence of any other evidence cannot attract provisions of Section 269SS. Further reliance was also placed in the case of S.R. Associated Construction Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)- ITA No. 209 & 210/Kol/2013 wherein it w…

Sh. Ramneek Sehgal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Range VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 194/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…9SS is to stop the circulation of unaccounted cash or introduction of unaccounted monies into the books by the way of loans which is not the case in the case of the assessee. He further relied on the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. 163 Taxmann 265 wherein it was held that the payment of monies into current account and withdrawals of monies from the current account in the presence of any other evidence cannot attract provisions of Section 269SS. Further reliance was also placed in the case of S.R. Associated Construction Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)- ITA No. 209 & 210/Kol/2013 wherein it w…

Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana vs. Addl. CIT, R-VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 193/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…9SS is to stop the circulation of unaccounted cash or introduction of unaccounted monies into the books by the way of loans which is not the case in the case of the assessee. He further relied on the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. 163 Taxmann 265 wherein it was held that the payment of monies into current account and withdrawals of monies from the current account in the presence of any other evidence cannot attract provisions of Section 269SS. Further reliance was also placed in the case of S.R. Associated Construction Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)- ITA No. 209 & 210/Kol/2013 wherein it w…

Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana vs. Addl. CIT, R-VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 192/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…9SS is to stop the circulation of unaccounted cash or introduction of unaccounted monies into the books by the way of loans which is not the case in the case of the assessee. He further relied on the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. 163 Taxmann 265 wherein it was held that the payment of monies into current account and withdrawals of monies from the current account in the presence of any other evidence cannot attract provisions of Section 269SS. Further reliance was also placed in the case of S.R. Associated Construction Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)- ITA No. 209 & 210/Kol/2013 wherein it w…

Monarch Dyestuff Industries & Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 397/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA.No.397 and 398/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 JCIT, Range-2(1) Monarch Dyestuff Industries Ahmedabad. & Exports Ltd. Vs. 301, Shagun Complex Nr. St. Xaviers Ladies Hostel Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380009. PAN : AABCM 8936 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri T.P. Hemani, AR Assessee by Revenue by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 19/03/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 22…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Suresh L. Wadhawa (HUF), Ulhasnagar

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1703/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 276S

…d provisions is curbing of black money - transaction recorded in books - only a technical / venial breach, e} CIT vs Smt. M. Yesodha (Madras High Court) 351 ITR 265- genuine transaction between family members is a reasonable cause Q CIT vs. Dhayam Publication 285 ITR 221 (Madras) - not applicable to current account type transactions g) CIT vs Saini Medical Store 276 ITR 79 - No intention to evade taxes - No penalty. In view of the above stated facts, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case penalty u/s. 271E of the Act on the following reasons a) the AO did the genuineness of the transactions and the appella…

The Dy. CIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. R.R. Chicken Pvt.Ltd., Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 466/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.S. Murthy, DRFor Respondent: Shri D.L. Narasimha Rao
Section 269SSection 271D

…f allotment of shares, was held by Courts in the following cases i. CIT v. Sri Sidhdata Ispat (P) Ltd. [2012 - TIOL — 786 — HC (Del.)] ii. CIT v. IP India (P) Ltd. (2012)70 DTR (Del.) 452, 2011-TIOL- 811-HC (Del.) iii. CIT v. ldhayam Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad.) 5.4 In view of the above, I hold that penalty u/s 271D is not leviable in this case. I, therefore, cancel the penalty levied.” 4 M/s. R.R. Chicken Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, both the Directors have…

M/S Eastern Track Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range 5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1691/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1690& 1691/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S Eastern Track Udyog Vs. Jcit, Range-5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 41, N.S. Road, Kolkata – 1. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 4959 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By :Shris. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Twoappeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To A.Y 2010-11,Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Sections271E & 271Dof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year & Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. 3. The Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.1690/Kol/2016, For A.Y.2010-11, Is Taken As The Lead Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Lead Case Reads As Under: “1. For That The Ld.Cit(A) Ought To Have Quashed The Order Of Penalty U/S 271E Passed By The Ld. Ao As It Was Barred By Limitation As Per The Provision Of Sec. 275(1)(C).

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriS. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)

…s and repays to different family members. Even otherwise similarly, transactions among sister concerns was held to be out of the purview of section 269SS in view of the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case CIT Vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad), wherein Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the findings of Tribunal as the Tribunal found that M, the proprietor of sister concern was one of the directors of the company and there was a running account in his name and it does not attract provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Hon'ble High Court also dismissed the appeal of revenue by holdi…

M/S Eastern Track Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range 25, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1690/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1690& 1691/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S Eastern Track Udyog Vs. Jcit, Range-5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 41, N.S. Road, Kolkata – 1. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 4959 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By :Shris. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Twoappeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To A.Y 2010-11,Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Sections271E & 271Dof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year & Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. 3. The Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.1690/Kol/2016, For A.Y.2010-11, Is Taken As The Lead Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Lead Case Reads As Under: “1. For That The Ld.Cit(A) Ought To Have Quashed The Order Of Penalty U/S 271E Passed By The Ld. Ao As It Was Barred By Limitation As Per The Provision Of Sec. 275(1)(C).

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriS. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)

…s and repays to different family members. Even otherwise similarly, transactions among sister concerns was held to be out of the purview of section 269SS in view of the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case CIT Vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad), wherein Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the findings of Tribunal as the Tribunal found that M, the proprietor of sister concern was one of the directors of the company and there was a running account in his name and it does not attract provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Hon'ble High Court also dismissed the appeal of revenue by holdi…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Dr. Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3294/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3294/Mds/2016, 1761/Mds/2017 & 1762/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. Dr.Ganesan’S Hitech The Deputy Commissioner Of Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., Income Tax, No.1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 010. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aadcd7458H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Deepa, CAFor Respondent: 20.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…before the Ld.ACIT that those transactions were only current account transactions and not loan or deposit as stipulated U/s.269SS / 269T of the Act, in order to attract penalty. The Ld.AR also placed reliance in the case Idhayam Publications Ltd reported in 285 ITR 221 and pleaded for ITA No.1761 & 1762/Mds/2017 dropping the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee. However, the Ld.ACIT rejected the submissions made by the Ld.AR by stating that the explanation of the Ld.AR was only an afterthought and the correct fact is that those transactions were cash loans received and repaid which is in contrave…

M/S Anglican India Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee, is allowed

ITA 121/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L. P. Sahu.

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 27I

…or related parties (Director) amounts to violation of section 269SS and 269T. Any payments or repayments made pursuant to current account maintained between panics cannot be considered as violation of 269SS and 269T CIT Vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd., (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad). 5 I. T. Appeal No. 121/Del/2016 Assessment Year : 2011–12. In this case there was a current account in the books of the assessee in the name of the one of the directors who used to pay money into the current account and also withdraw money from the same. The department treated these payments and withdrawals as violation of section 269T as…

Boomi Bottling Gas, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 268/CHNY/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.Ponraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jt. CIT
Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 272ASection 272B

…ly, consider the assessee’s third argument, i.e., amounts accepted and repaid by the assessee-company as being not a loan or deposit, so that s. 269T is not attracted, which is made with reference to the decision in CIT v. Idhayam Publication Pvt. Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 221 (Mad). We have carefully perused the said decision. In that case the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that the current (running) account of a director/shareholder with a private limited company on which no interest was being charged, is not a loan or deposit. There was accordingly no contravention of s. 269SS, so as to attract s. 271D of th…

M/S S.R.Associated Construction Co (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T Range - Malda., Malda

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmatsinghka,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271D

…ning current account would not take the character of a loan or deposit. In this regard, we find lot of force in the case laws relied upon by the Learned AR :- a) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Idhayam Publications Ltd reported in 285 ITR 221 (MAD) 5 ITA Nos.209-210/K/2013-B-AM M/s. S.R Associated Construction “4. We heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revenue. We have perused the materials available in record. Admittedly Mr. S.V.S. Manian was one of the directors. Therefore the order of the lower authority clearly shows that there was a running current account in the book…