CIT v. Lokpal Film Exchange (Cinema)

304 ITR 172High Court2008#5256 most cited

What is CIT v. Lokpal Film Exchange (Cinema) authority for?

A penalty under section 271D and 271E cannot be imposed if the assessee acted bona fide and had a reasonable explanation for non-compliance with sections 269SS and 269T, especially when transactions were genuine.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lokpal Film Exchange (Cinema) · 304 ITR 172 · penalty under section 271D · penalty under section 271E · section 269SS · section 269T · reasonable cause · section 273B · bona fide belief · genuine transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 271E

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271dsection 269ssection 273section 269tsection 269sssection 273bsection 271dsection 269section 26reasonable causesection 271section 27

Judgments citing CIT v. Lokpal Film Exchange (Cinema)

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Kavita Behal, New Delhi

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

ITA 6528/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

…ITA NOS. 6528 & 6529/Del/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-2”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 6528 & 6529/DEL/2013 A.YR. : 2009-10 Smt. Kavita Behal, ITO, Ward-5(2), 49, Lajpat Nagar-III Room No. 234-B, CR Building, VS. Ring Road, IP Estate, New Delhi New Delhi (PANAAEPB271P) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Saxena & Sh. Devinder K. Jain, Cas Date of Hearing : Date of Hearing : 05 Date of Hearing : Date of Hearing : 05 0…

Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi vs. M/S Muthoot Financiers, New Delhi

ITA - 336 / 2002HC Delhi03 Feb 2015
Section 148Section 260Section 269Section 271

…Page 9 of 19 1. (1977) 1 SCC 431, Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. R.M.Chidambaram Pillai & Ors. 2. (2013) 354 ITR 9 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.Sivakumar. 3. (2008) 304 ITR 172 (Raj), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema). 4. (2005) 277 ITR 420 (P&H), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Saini Medical Store. 5. (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the answer to the issue which aris…