CIT v. Manoj Lalwani

260 ITR 590High Court2003#8371 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Manoj Lalwani

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

…ed under section 271D merely on technical mistake committed by the assessee, which had not resulted in any loss of revenue, was held to be harsh and not sustainable in law and appeal was decided in favour of the assessee. In the case of CIT Vs. Manoj Lalwani (260 ITR 590), it was held by Honourable Rajasthan High Court that when section 271D of the Income-tax Act, is read with section 273B of the Act of 1961 which begins with the non obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 271D", it is clear that in spite of the provisions of section 271D, the enactment following, namely,…

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

…ed under section 271D merely on technical mistake committed by the assessee, which had not resulted in any loss of revenue, was held to be harsh and not sustainable in law and appeal was decided in favour of the assessee. In the case of CIT Vs. Manoj Lalwani (260 ITR 590), it was held by Honourable Rajasthan High Court that when section 271D of the Income-tax Act, is read with section 273B of the Act of 1961 which begins with the non obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 271D", it is clear that in spite of the provisions of section 271D, the enactment following, namely,…

M/S. ARUN PULVARISING INDUSTRIES ,PRATAPGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, , CHITTORGARH.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 430/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Arun Pulvarising Acit, Chittorgarh, Industries, M.G. Road, Vs Rajasthan Pratapgarh, Rajasthan Pan: Aadfa0793K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Arun Padliya & Shri Abhinav Jaion, Cas Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur Dated 28Th June, 2018 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271E Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “01. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Learned Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Cit(A), Udaipur Erred In Facts As Well As In Law Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of Rs. 3,90,000/- On The Assessee Firm Without Considering The M/S Arun Pulvarising Industries

Section 271ESection 273B

…as public holiday on 28th March. Banks were over worked being end of financial year. Therefore, in our opinion, there was reasonable cause for cash payment to HUF. 8. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax vs. Manoj Lalwani 260 ITR 590 (Rajasthan) has held as under:- “4. As per section 269SS of the Act of 1961 after 30th day of June, 1984 no person is allowed to take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, of amount of twenty thousand rupees or more. Section 271D of the Act of 1961 speaks of levy of…

SWAPNIL MURLIDHAR PICHAD,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT. RANG- 1 KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5402/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Shri Swapnil Murlidhar Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Pichad Tax, Range – 1 B-508, Ashoka Building No.2 Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar Gavand Baug, Kadakpada, Kalyan (W) Pokharan Road No.2 Dist: Thane – 421 301 Thane – 400 606 Pan/Gir No.Bjcpp9926N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 58

…t case, there is absolutely no dispute that the father of the assessee had sufficient sources to advance cash loan to the assessee in the sum of Rs.7,17,000/-. We also find that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manoj Lalwani reported in 260 ITR 590 had held that when the cash loan has been taken in view of the urgent need connected with export, no penalty u/s.271D of the Act could be levied on the same. In the instant case before us, there is no dispute that the cash loan was received by the assessee from his father for meeting his urgent business exigencies. In view of the aforesaid observ…

SHRI RAGHUBIR BHUWALKA,HOWRAH vs. JCIT, RANGE - 46, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2443/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…the revenue before us. In such circumstances, there is a reasonable cause for taking money in cash from his parents out of business expediency. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manoj Lalwani (2003) 260 ITR 590; (2003) Tax LR 290) (raj), wherein it was held that when loan in cash has been taken in view of urgent need connected with export, Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty u/s. 271D. We also find force in the argument taken by the learned counsel for the assessee that assessee being a layman was not aware of the provisions of the Act as suc…

SHRI P. SUNDARAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 2730/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2730/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. Shri. P. Sundaramurthy, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No.19, Mariamman Koil Street, Income Tax, Manjini Nagar, Pondicherry Range, Puducherry 605 003. Pondicherry. [Pan Aasps 2879P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V.M. Mahidar, IRS, JCIT
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…hat assessee had reasonable cause for repayment of the loan in cash and hence penalty u/s.271E of the Act is not warranted. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- 01. CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bojoria HUF, 263 ITR 487 (Gau) 02. CIT vs. Manoj Lalwani, 260 ITR 590 (Raj) 03. CIT vs. Parma Nand, 180 CTR 489 (Del) 04. Eatachi Agencies 248 ITR 525 (Bom) It is further submitted that when the genuineness of the transaction was accepted mere technical violation of law does not entail levy of penalty. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Oris…

SONIA MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 69, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7792/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sonia Malik, Vs. Jcit, 229, Ground Floor, Range-69, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Anqpm9150J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6Th Septemfebr, 2018 Passed By The Cit(A)-21, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Various Grounds Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.3,25,000/- Levied By The Jcit U/S 271D Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 54F

…cause for not invoking the penal provisions of sections 4 271D and 27IE of the Act against him. The deletion of penalty by the Tribunal was valid.’ Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manoj Lalwani reported in 260 ITR 590, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that when the loan in cash has been taken in view of urgent need connected with export, Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act. Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Sunil Kumar Sood vs. Jt. CIT in ITA No.1831/Del…

RANJIT ROY,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE - 23, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2254/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2254/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

…the revenue before us. In such circumstances, there is a reasonable cause for taking money in cash from his parents out of business expediency. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manoj Lalwani (2003) 260 ITR 590; (2003) Tax LR 290) (raj), wherein it was held that when loan in cash has been taken in view of urgent need connected with export, Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty u/s. 271D. We also find force in the argument taken by the learned counsel for the assessee that assessee being a layman was not aware of the provisions of the Act as suc…

ELECTROPLAST ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4806/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Electroplast Engineers, Jcit-24(3) 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Garuda House, 142, Upper Govind Nagar, Vs. Mumbai Opp. Kailashpuri Hanuman Temple, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 8028 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri D. G. Pansari Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2018 : 04.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. G. Pansari
Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM M/s. Electroplast Engineers, JCIT-24(3) 4th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Garuda House, 142, Upper Govind Nagar, Vs. Mumbai Opp. Kailashpuri Hanuman Temple, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 PAN/GIR No. AAAFE 8028 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri D. G. Pansari Date of Hearing : 19.11.2018 : 04.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai (‘l…

SHRI NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)Section 271ESection 40A(3)

…that if a person repays any deposit referred to in section 269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the deposit so repaid. In CIT v. Manoj Lalwani [2003] 260 ITR 590 (Raj) the question for consideration was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal had committed illegality in deleting the penalty under section 271D. The assessee exporter in that case took the cash loan in contravention of section 269SS because he was in urgent need of money for making the time bound supplies. The Divis…

I.T.O. WARD - 38(2), MIDNAPORE, PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. SHRI ARUP KUMAR HAZRA , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2488/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nicolas Murmu, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…circumstances has reasonable cause and that penalty cannot be levied in accordance with the provision of section 273B of the Act. I also find that the ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Manoj Lalwni 260 ITR 590 (Raj). The ld. CIT(A) at page 13 concluded as follows :- "In the instant case, the Tribunal had found that the assessee was an exporter and was in urgent need of the money for complying with the time-bound supplies and, therefore, he took a loan of a specified sum from his relative, out of which a large portion was immediately deposited in the ba…

SUKANTA BARDHAN,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

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

ITA 200/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. J.C.I.T, Range – 2, Hooghly Sukanta Bardhan C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, Seven Brothers Lodge, P.O. Buroshibtala. P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly. Pin- 712105. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adlpb 3978 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata, In Appeal No.10/Cit(A)-6/Kol/12-13, Dated 29.01.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271D Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.03.2012. 2. The Brief Facts Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2009-10 On 27.09.2009. The Assessee’S Return Was Processed U/S.143(1), Dated 30.07.2010. Subsequently, The Sukanta Bardhan

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kalyannath, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…the revenue before us. In such circumstances, there is a reasonable cause for taking money in cash from his parents out of business expediency. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manoj Lalwani (2003) 260 ITR 590; (2003) Tax LR 290) (Raj), wherein it was held that when loan in cash has been taken in view of urgent need connected with export, Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty u/s. 271D.” Sukanta Bardhan I.T.A No.200/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 ii) In the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” in the case of Dillu Cine Enterprises (P.). Ltd. vs. ACIT in [2002] 80…

AVIJIT SAHA,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 269SSection 271D

…the revenue before us. In such circumstances, there is a reasonable cause for taking money in cash from his parents out of business expediency. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manoj Lalwani (2003) 260 ITR 590; (2003) Tax LR 290) (raj), wherein it was held that when loan in cash has been taken in view of urgent need connected with export, Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty u/s. 271D. We also find force in the argument taken by the learned counsel for the assessee that assessee being a layman was not aware of the provisions of the Act as suc…

CIT v. Manoj Lalwani (260 ITR 590) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax