CIT v. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog

302 ITR 201High Court2008#6971 most cited

What is CIT v. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog authority for?

A penalty under sections 271D or 271E is not leviable if the assessee provides a reasonable explanation for a cash transaction, acted in good faith, or if the default was of a technical nature, especially when considering section 273B.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog · section 271D · section 271E · section 269SS · section 273B · reasonable cause · bonafide belief · technical default · penalty deletion · cash transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 271ESection 269SSSection 143(3)Section 269T

Issues it is cited on

section 269tsection 269ssection 271esection 273section 269sssection 271ddeletion of penaltysection 269section 273bshare application moneymiscellaneous applicationlevy of penalty

Judgments citing CIT v. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1022 &1023/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Kanhiya Lal Sain cuke The JCIT Vs. 7, Purana Ramgarh Mode Range-7 Anand Colony,Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BCYPS 6300 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokb…

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

…In the above case, it was held that when assessee has no intension to violate provision & the cash transaction between two parties are genuine the penalty u/s 271D is deleted. Various cases cited in the said judgment are: CIT vs. Maherwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Rajastan) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) (2003) 26 ITR 0487 CIT vs Saini Medical Store (2005) 275 ITR 79 b. No penalty u/s 2710/E should be impossible on the assessee for any failure referred in provision which include section 2710, if it is proved that there is a reasonable cause for failure of Reasonable causes was sufficiently made ou…

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

…In the above case, it was held that when assessee has no intension to violate provision & the cash transaction between two parties are genuine the penalty u/s 271D is deleted. Various cases cited in the said judgment are: CIT vs. Maherwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Rajastan) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) (2003) 26 ITR 0487 CIT vs Saini Medical Store (2005) 275 ITR 79 b. No penalty u/s 2710/E should be impossible on the assessee for any failure referred in provision which include section 2710, if it is proved that there is a reasonable cause for failure of Reasonable causes was sufficiently made ou…

Sh. Prem Singh Saini, Sikar vs. Addl. CIT, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 952/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271D

…reasonable explanation for receiving the amount in cash, acted in bonafide manner or default is of technical nature, no penalty u/s 271D/ 271E is leviable. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj.) (HC) The Hon’ble High Court at Para 7 to 10 of this judgment held as under:- 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, the CIT(A)-I, Jodhpur, as well as the order of the Dy. CIT, Bikaner. It is true that as per the provisions of s. 269SS of the Act, no p…

Sh. Prem Singh Saini, Sikar vs. Addl. CIT, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 951/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271D

…reasonable explanation for receiving the amount in cash, acted in bonafide manner or default is of technical nature, no penalty u/s 271D/ 271E is leviable. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj.) (HC) The Hon’ble High Court at Para 7 to 10 of this judgment held as under:- 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, the CIT(A)-I, Jodhpur, as well as the order of the Dy. CIT, Bikaner. It is true that as per the provisions of s. 269SS of the Act, no p…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal, Jhalawar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

…iven a reasonable explanation for receiving the amount in cash, acted in bonafide manner or default is of technical nature, no penalty u/s 271D is leviable. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201(Raj.) (HC) The Hon’ble High Court at Para 6 to 9 of this judgment held as under:- 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, the CIT(A)-I, Jodhpur, as well as the order of the Dy. CIT, Bikaner. It is true that as per the provisions of s. 269SS of the Act, no pers…

M/S. Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1749/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…essee company. Reliance is placed on the following judgments : (i). CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., 285 ITR 221 (Mad.) (ii). CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, 315 ITR 163 (P&H) (iii). CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad.) (iv). CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog, 302 ITR 201 (Raj.) (v). CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria(HUF) 263 ITR 487 (Gau.) (vi). ADI vs. Kumari A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 (SC) (vii). Smt. Dimple Yadav Appeal No. 174 of 2015 dt. 21.08.2015(All). 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee clearly violated the provisions of section 269…

M/S. Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1748/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…essee company. Reliance is placed on the following judgments : (i). CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., 285 ITR 221 (Mad.) (ii). CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, 315 ITR 163 (P&H) (iii). CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad.) (iv). CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog, 302 ITR 201 (Raj.) (v). CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria(HUF) 263 ITR 487 (Gau.) (vi). ADI vs. Kumari A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 (SC) (vii). Smt. Dimple Yadav Appeal No. 174 of 2015 dt. 21.08.2015(All). 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee clearly violated the provisions of section 269…

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range Moga, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

…of Omee Engineers Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 599, it was held that where there is no finding that transactions were not genuine and there is no malafide intention, the penalty could not be sustained in law. In the case of CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirntan Udyog, (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj), it has been held that where a reasonable explanation is furnished, levy of penalty u/s 27 ID is not justified. Balbir Singh v. Addl. CIT In the present ease also the transaction of Rs. 20.00 has been proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of AO and has not been doubted. There is no loss to the revenue and the transaction has been made…

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre, Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

…of Omee Engineers Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 599, it was held that where there is no finding that transactions were not genuine and there is no malafide intention, the penalty could not be sustained in law. In the case of CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirntan Udyog, (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj), it has been held that where a reasonable explanation is furnished, levy of penalty u/s 27 ID is not justified. Balbir Singh v. Addl. CIT In the present ease also the transaction of Rs. 20.00 has been proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of AO and has not been doubted. There is no loss to the revenue and the transaction has been made…

M/S Lok Vikas Housing Funds Ltd.( Now Lok Vikas Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. The Addl.CIT Range-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/JPR/1999[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 254(1)Section 269DSection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…of the affairs of the company in failing to register the company as a dealer acted in the honest and genuine belief that the company was not a dealer. Granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty was made out. CIT Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj) (HC) (Case Laws Compilation PB 15-25) The Hon’ble High Court at Para 11 to 13 of the order held as under:- 11. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, in our view, the finding given by the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal that the transaction in question is a genuine transaction, cannot be disturbed by this Court in the…

Vivekananda Seva Kendra O Sishu Uddyan, South 24 Parganas vs. Jdit, Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2595/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2595/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

…oan transaction not exactly adhering to the prescribed mode had been provided exoneration from penal consequence. We rely on the judgment of various Hon’ble High Courts in the case of CIT vs. Makhija Construction 257 ITR 8 (MP), CIT vs. Maheswari Nirman Udyog 302 ITR 201 (Rajasthan), CIT vs. Preeti Fuels and Flames (P) Ltd. 330 ITR 129 (Chattisgarh), even in the case of Sharda Educational Trust vs. Assistant CIT (2006) 99 TTJ Agra 212 on having found the loans genuine and fully used for the charitable purposes. Penalty in relation to loan transactions had been deleted. Lastly the repayment having been made throug…

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

…sessee has shown reasonable cause as provided in section 273B of the Act. In support of her submission, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goeal [(2009) 315 ITR 163 (Punj. & Har.)]. 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…

Mamata Patra, Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-5, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 136/CTK/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2018AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Tigga, DR
Section 269SSection 271D

…rovisions and has a reasonable cause in accepting the cash as the business transaction performed at Jaipur to be on cash to cash basis. The ld. AR supported his submission with judicial decisions which are as under :- i) CIT Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog [2008] 302 ITR 201 (Rajasthan) : 5 “Held ; Sec. 273B provides that if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for any failure, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee as provided under s. 271D. Both the fact-finding authorities found that the transaction in question is a genuine transaction and the explanation given by the responden…

Rajendra Meena, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1006/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gogra, CA and Shri S.S. Gogra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR
Section 271DSection 271ESection 5

…Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Coordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Kusum Dhamani vs. Addl. CIT (supra) and also in view of the following case laws as relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee namely :- 1. CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj.) 2. CIT vs. Yasundara Devi (2015) 66 (II)ITCL 578 (Chennai Tribunal). 3. DCIT vs. Triumalaraju Trinadhu Raju (2016) 69(II) ITCL 342 (Chennai Tribunal). 4. CIT vs. Ajanta Dyeing & Printing Mills (2003) 264 ITR 505 (Raj.) 5. Sudha Agro Oil & Chemical Industries vs. Addl. CIT (2016) Tax Publisher (DT) 2783 Vishakhapatnam Tribunal I direct…

Jitendra Meena, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 816/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gogra, CA and Shri S.S. Gogra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR
Section 271DSection 5

…- आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 816 & 1002/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2008-09 cuke Shri Jitendra Meena The JCIT Vs. 855, Aakron Ka Rasta Central Range Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFZPM 1966 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri S.K. Gogra, CA and Shri S.S. Gogra, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT -…