CIT v. Lakshmi Trust Co.

303 ITR 99High Court2008#5596 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 10(2)Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSSection 271E

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271esection 143(l)(a)section 114(e)penalty under section 271dexport oriented unitsection 245hsection 261section 269tsection 273section 269ssection 271esection 34(1)(iv)

Judgments citing CIT v. Lakshmi Trust Co.

VIJAYARANGAM RANGANATH PRAVHAKAR,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sri Vijayarangam Ranganath Prabhakar, 34/1, Vijayarangam The Assistant compound, Commissioner of Silver Oak Street [Main], Income Tax, Puttenahalli, 7th Phase, Circle – 4(3)(1), J P Nagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bengaluru – 560 078. PAN: AJDPP6040R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 18-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15-12-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., J…

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 232/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273ASection 80C

….Raju Vs. ACIT [ITA.No.899/Mds/2006]; (ii) of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Sunil M. Kasliwal [reported in (2005) 94 ITD 281]; and (iii) of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. http://www.judis.nic.in Lakshmi Trust Co. [reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99]. and held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the levy of penalty was not warranted. The Tribunal further held that the transaction between the father in law and the daughter in law was a genuine transaction and this was not in dispute because the amount was paid for purchase of a property. Before the Division Bench, the Revenue con…

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…ther-in-law was not a gift but only a loan— CIT(A) upheld decision of AO—ITAT upholding transaction between assessee and his father-in-law as genuine, deleted penalty thereof—Held, tribunal had correctly considered ratio in case of CIT V. Lakshmi Trust (2008) 303 ITR 99 (Mad) wherein it was held that once finding as to genuineness of transactions is arrived at by the Tribunal on facts, finding recorded by Tribunal in this regard is a finding of fact and no question of law much less a substantial question of law would arise—Amount was paid by the father-in-law for purchase of property and source was disclosed duri…

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

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…cordingly, the order of the Tribunal stands confirmed and both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed. 20. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lakshmi Trust Co., reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99, while deleting the penalty u/s.271D & 271E of the Act after appreciating that there was bona fide belief and reasonable cause for accepting/repayment of amount in cash has confirmed the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty by observing as under :- 7. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made on either side. 8. T…

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

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…cordingly, the order of the Tribunal stands confirmed and both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed. 20. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lakshmi Trust Co., reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99, while deleting the penalty u/s.271D & 271E of the Act after appreciating that there was bona fide belief and reasonable cause for accepting/repayment of amount in cash has confirmed the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty by observing as under :- 7. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made on either side. 8. T…

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -4, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI MAHESH SHANKAR SORATE , DARYAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269TSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.250/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–4, Amravati v/s Shri Mahesh Shankar Sorate ……………. Respondent Daryapur, Distt. Amravati PAN – AGYPS5409D Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 10/07/2024 Date of Order – 29/07/2024 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 07/08/2018, passed by the learned Com…

SHRI BABU MUNIRATHINAM,CHENNAI vs. THE JCIT, NCR-17,, CHENNAI

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 1061/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1061/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Babu Munirathinam, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No. 45/13, Sriuvallur Road, Perambur, Income Tax, Chennai 600 011. Non Corporate Range 17, Chennai. [Pan:Anypm7361H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground Nos. 1 To 4 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Levied By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271D

….Raju Vs. ACIT [ITA.No.899/Mds/2006]; (ii) of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Sunil M. Kasliwal [reported in (2005) 94 ITD 281]; and (iii) of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. http://www.judis.nic.in Lakshmi Trust Co. [reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99], and held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the levy of penalty was not warranted. The Tribunal further held that the transaction between the father in law and the daughter in law was a genuine transaction and this was not in dispute because the amount was paid for purchase of a property. Before the Division Bench, the Revenue con…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…j) Page 11 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (iv) CIT v. Hissaria Brothers [2016] 386 ITR 719 (SC) (v) Omec Engineers vs CIT [2008] 294 Taxman 599 (Jharkhand) (vi) CIT v. Ratna Agencies [2006] 284 ITR 609 (vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust Co. 303 ITR 99 (Mad.). (viii) Shreenath Builders v. Dy. CIT [2000] 111 Taxman 142 (Mag.) 7.1 Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that even otherwise when the repayment was through RTGS the same is through banking channel and cannot be held as a violation of section 269T of the Act. He has pointed out that this mode of payment was included subsequently vide amendment howe…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…j) Page 11 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (iv) CIT v. Hissaria Brothers [2016] 386 ITR 719 (SC) (v) Omec Engineers vs CIT [2008] 294 Taxman 599 (Jharkhand) (vi) CIT v. Ratna Agencies [2006] 284 ITR 609 (vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust Co. 303 ITR 99 (Mad.). (viii) Shreenath Builders v. Dy. CIT [2000] 111 Taxman 142 (Mag.) 7.1 Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that even otherwise when the repayment was through RTGS the same is through banking channel and cannot be held as a violation of section 269T of the Act. He has pointed out that this mode of payment was included subsequently vide amendment howe…

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…j) Page 11 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (iv) CIT v. Hissaria Brothers [2016] 386 ITR 719 (SC) (v) Omec Engineers vs CIT [2008] 294 Taxman 599 (Jharkhand) (vi) CIT v. Ratna Agencies [2006] 284 ITR 609 (vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust Co. 303 ITR 99 (Mad.). (viii) Shreenath Builders v. Dy. CIT [2000] 111 Taxman 142 (Mag.) 7.1 Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that even otherwise when the repayment was through RTGS the same is through banking channel and cannot be held as a violation of section 269T of the Act. He has pointed out that this mode of payment was included subsequently vide amendment howe…

MANI SUNDARAM,DEVAKOTTAI vs. ITO,WARD-1, KARAIKUDI

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 899/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.899/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mani Sundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 52, Thiyagigal Road, Ward-1, Karaikudi. Devakottai, Tamil Nadu 630 302. [Pan:Cwops9124D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 21.06.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M/S. Surabi Pvc Pipes & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 20.01.2018 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹.3,03,720/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

….Raju Vs. ACIT [ITA.No.899/Mds/2006]; (ii) of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Sunil M. Kasliwal [reported in (2005) 94 ITD 281]; and (iii) of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. http://www.judis.nic.in Lakshmi Trust Co. [reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99], and held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the levy of penalty was not warranted. The Tribunal further held that the transaction between the father in law and the daughter in law was a genuine transaction and this was not in dispute because the amount was paid for purchase of a property. Before the Division Bench, the Revenue con…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SATNA vs. SHRI JAMMU BEG,

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 196/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…of money to be paid to the seller. We find that this would amount to reasonable cause shown by the assessee to avoid penalty under Section 271D of the income Tax Act" (Para10) Jammu Beg. The Tribunal, referring to the decision of this Court reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99 (Mad) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Lakshmi Trust Company), has rightly allowed the appeal We do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal to warrant interference. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and this Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. (Para12) The Hon'ble Court concluded…

VIVEKANAND SADANAND GAVHANE,,SOLAPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE - 2,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1214/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 269SSection 271D

…loans having obtained from assessee’s mother only. That being the case, various judicial precedents (2022) 137 taxmann.com 395 (Del), Baloo Vs. Dy. CIT (2011) 16 taxmann.com 35 (Cal), CIT vs. Baloj Truees (2008) 167 taxman 27 (Mad) C.I.T. Vs. Laxmi Trust Co. 303 ITR 99 (Mad) held that such a penalty involving cash loans from family members to meet with business exigencies is not sustainable as it should not be held that the same violated the basic tenor of sec. 269SS of the Act. Faced with this situation, we delete the impugned penalty on account of overwhelming genuineness involving facts of the instant case. T…

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

…after scrutiny, and further there being no finding that transactions were mala fide aimed at disclosing concealed money, imposition of penalty under s. 271D merely for technical mistake could not be sustained; iv. CIT vs. Lakshmi Trust Co. reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99 (Mad) where it was held that if there were genuine and bona fide transactions and the taxpayer could not get a 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…

BALWAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE-21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2383/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Suman Malik, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2383/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2008-09 Shri Balwan Singh v. Asst. Commissioner of Income (Prop. M/s. Balwan Road Carriers) Tax, I-3/109, Sector 16, Rohini, Range-21(1), Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AOGPS6903J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Mohit Bansal, CA Respondent by: Mrs. Suman Malik, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 29 03 2022 Date of pronouncement: 04 04 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed at the insta…

RAJKUMAR S AGARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT-20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4251/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 4251/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Shri Rajkumar S Agarwal The Jt. Commissioner Of 209, Raiker Chamber, Bks Devsai Income Tax Marg, Govandi East, Mumbai फनाभ/ Circle-20(3) 4T H 411, Floor, Piramal Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aidpa3783B अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Vidhyadhar V, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar V, DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…of law much less a substantial question of law would arise, we do not have any hesitation to hold that it may not be proper for this court to interfere with such a finding of fact." 12. The Tribunal, referring to the decision of this Court reported in [2008] 303 ITR 99 (Mad) (Commissioner of Income Tax V. Lakshmi Trust Company), has rightly allowed the appeal. We do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal to warrant interference. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and this Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs.” 7. In view of the above d…

AUTO FUEL CENTRE,DURGAPUR vs. J.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Auto Fuel Centre Vs. Jcit, Circle-1, Dgp C/O. Sn Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seben Brothers” Lodge, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S Chinsurah, Dist- Hooghly. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfa8826F (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…the payment was made. This is bona fide and genuine transaction to help the relatives and friends in needy hours and there was no intention to deceive the Revenue. 7. We note that Hon`ble Madras High Court in the case of C.I.T. -VS- Lakshmi Trust Co. [2008] 303 ITR 99 (MAD), held as follows: “We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made on either side. This court in CIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. [2006] 283 ITR 329 (Mad), following the decision of the apex court in Asst. Director of Inspection (Invst.) v. Kum. A. B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258, held that if there was genuine and bona…

SABINA MUYEENUDDIN,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1040/Mds/ 2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Surpriyo Pal, IRS, JCIT
Section 268Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…shown by the assessee to avoid penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act. 11. Referring to the decision CIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. reported in [2006] 283 ITR 329 (Mad), this court in the decision CIT v. Lakshmi Trust Co. reported in [2008] 303 ITR 99 (Mad), held as follows: "In the instant case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal found on the facts that the transactions were genuine and the identity of the lenders was also satisfied. The Appellate Tribunal also upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that there was no intention on the part…

SH. RAJESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…committee foraging funds. 4.2 Further in support of his submission, the Ld. A/R also relied on the following judgements of the Hon’ble court’s: (i) CIT V/s Saini medical store (P& H High Court) 277 ITR 420 (ii) CIT V/s Luxmi trust company (Madras High Court) 303 ITR 99 4.3 Further the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a graduate in bachelor of arts and was unaware of the technicalities of Income tax law and the assessee was not liable for tax audit, he engaged services of part time accountant for maintaining his books of accounts and for filing of returns. The Ld. AR submitted that loans were accepted in cas…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. KAVITA BEHAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6529/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Saxena & Sh. Devinder KFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…ters & Builders [2011] 16 taxmann.com 138 (Kar.) – High Court of Karnataka (c) CIT vs. Shivalik Loha Mills Ltd. – 2007-TIOL-75-HC- P&H-IT (d) CIT vs. Bangalore Leather & Leather Crafts Ltd. [2012] 19 taxmann.com 21 (Kar.) (e) CIT vs. Lakshmi Trust Co. [2008] 303 ITR 99 (Mad.) (f) CIT vs. Balaji Traders [2008] 167 Taxman 27 (Mad.) (g) Addl. CIT vs. BBL Foods Pvt. Ltd. 2008-TIOL-299- ITAT-HYD. (h) Rajendra Suryavanshi vs. ACIT [2012]taxmann.com 358 (Pune) – ITAT, Pune Bench. i) CIT vs. Cadbury India Ltd. [2011] 11 taxmann.com 66 Delhi – High Court of Delhi. (j) Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank vs. Addl. C…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2