CIT v. Narvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh

303 ITR 5High Court2008#7851 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Narvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh

ASSANAR & SONS,KOTTAYAM vs. JTCIT, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 191/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Cherian, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 269TSection 271E

…) TMI 564 (Guj.) 4) CIT vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P) Ltd. (2008) (304 ITR 417) (Mad.) 5) CIT vs. Saini Medical Store (P&H) (2005) 277 ITR 420 )P&H). 6) CIT vs. Eetachi Agencies (2001) 248 ITR 525 (Bom.). 7) CIT vs. Natvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh (2008) 303 ITR 5 (Guj.). 8) Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2010) 41 DTR (Hyd.) (Trib.) 305. 9) Muslim Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. JCIT (2005) 96 ITD 83 (Pune). 10) Salagaon Sanmitra Sahakari Pathpedhi Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2012) 51 SOT 53 (Mum.) (Trib.). 11) ACIT vs. Vinman Finance & Leasing Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ (Visakha) (TM) 462. 12)…

SHRI VISHAL MOHANLAL TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1027/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 68

…to HUF. Thus, penalty under section 271D was not leviable as there was no contravention of section 269SS of the Act. He relied upon the judgment of jurisdictional High Court as well as Tribunal’s decisions as follows: i) CIT v. Narvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh 303 ITR 5 (Guj) ITA No.1024/Ahd/2019 and 3 Others 4 Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to comply with section 269SS - Assessment year 1991-92 - Where Tribunal found that amounts alleged to have been received in cash or paid in cash were mere book entries and were part of transactions on behalf of family members, it could not b…

SHRI VISHAL MOHANLAL TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1026/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 68

…to HUF. Thus, penalty under section 271D was not leviable as there was no contravention of section 269SS of the Act. He relied upon the judgment of jurisdictional High Court as well as Tribunal’s decisions as follows: i) CIT v. Narvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh 303 ITR 5 (Guj) ITA No.1024/Ahd/2019 and 3 Others 4 Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to comply with section 269SS - Assessment year 1991-92 - Where Tribunal found that amounts alleged to have been received in cash or paid in cash were mere book entries and were part of transactions on behalf of family members, it could not b…

SHRI MOHANLAL SAVJIBHAI TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1025/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 68

…to HUF. Thus, penalty under section 271D was not leviable as there was no contravention of section 269SS of the Act. He relied upon the judgment of jurisdictional High Court as well as Tribunal’s decisions as follows: i) CIT v. Narvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh 303 ITR 5 (Guj) ITA No.1024/Ahd/2019 and 3 Others 4 Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to comply with section 269SS - Assessment year 1991-92 - Where Tribunal found that amounts alleged to have been received in cash or paid in cash were mere book entries and were part of transactions on behalf of family members, it could not b…

SHRI MOHANLAL SAVJIBHAI TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1024/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 68

…to HUF. Thus, penalty under section 271D was not leviable as there was no contravention of section 269SS of the Act. He relied upon the judgment of jurisdictional High Court as well as Tribunal’s decisions as follows: i) CIT v. Narvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh 303 ITR 5 (Guj) ITA No.1024/Ahd/2019 and 3 Others 4 Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to comply with section 269SS - Assessment year 1991-92 - Where Tribunal found that amounts alleged to have been received in cash or paid in cash were mere book entries and were part of transactions on behalf of family members, it could not b…

BOOKMYWISH E COMMERCE PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1705/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…loan or advance. We find that facts of the case of the assessee are entirely different as in both the loan accounts there were only credit transaction on obtaining loan and there was no debit transaction. In the case of CIT vs. Natwarlal Purshottamdas Parekh 303 ITR 5 (Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat), in this case transaction with the family members on maturity of NSC were based on mere book entry and no cash amount was involved. However, the facts of the case of the assessee are entirely different wherein all the transactions of loan were based on cash basis. In the case of Hindustan Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl.…

SRI PLABAN KUMAR BASU,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O. WARD - 1(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.314/Kol/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Plaban Kumar Basu Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Burdwan

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271D

…the lower authorities’ action invoking the impugned penalty. We find no reason to sustain the penalty in issue. The fact remains that the two sum(s) in question of ₹1 lakh and 1.30 lakh have come from assessee’s mother and wife; respectively. Case law (2008) 303 ITR 5 (Guj) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NatvarlalPurshottamdas Parekh holds that such kind of amount(s); which are mere book entry transactions on behalf of familymembers does not violate the provision of sec. 269SS and 269T. Hon'ble Madras high court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad) also holds that…

SRI PLABAN KUMAR BASU,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O. WARD - 1(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2009-10

Section 269Section 271Section 271D

…the lower authorities’ action invoking the impugned penalty. We find no reason to sustain the penalty in issue. The fact remains that the two sum(s) in question of ₹1 lakh and 1.30 lakh have come from assessee’s mother and wife; respectively. Case law (2008) 303 ITR 5 (Guj) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Natvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh holds that such kind of amount(s); which are mere book entry transactions on behalf of family- members does not violate the provision of sec. 269SS and 269T. Hon'ble Madras high court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad) also holds th…

SRI HIRANMOY GON,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chiranjit Goswami, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

…the transactions to meet immediate necessity amount to reasonable cause in terms of Sec. 273B of the Income Tax Act and therefore Penalty could not be levied U/s 271D of the Income Tax Act. 4 Sri Hiranmoy Gon (ii) In C.I.T. vs Natvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh (303 ITR 5 Gujrat) it has also been held that since there was reasonable cause and the "Transactions" were with the Family Members, the Penalty could not be levied U/s 271D of the Income Tax Act. (iii) In C.I.T. vs Balaji Traders (303 ITR 312 Madras) it has been held that if there was a genuine and bona fide transaction and the taxpayer could not get a loan o…

SHRI MANOJ BHAWARLAL DHOOT ,BAGALKOT vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAPURA RANGE , VIJAPURA

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

ITA 232/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Gokul L. Malpani, C AFor Respondent: Dr. Sandeep Goel, Addl.CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

…In support of his contention, he relied on plethora of decisions as follows : 1. CIT Vs. Balaji Traders 303 ITR 312 (Mad) 2. Chandra Cement Ltd. Vs. DCIT 68 TTJ 35. 3. CIT Vs. Bhagwati Praad Bajoria – HUF 263 ITR 487 4. CIT Vs. Natvarlal Purshottama Parekh 303 ITR 5 (Guj) 5. Vir Sales Corporation Vs. ACIT 50 TTJ 130 (Ahd) 6. CIT Vs. Manoj Lalwani 269 ITR 590 (Jai) 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether the penalt…

M/S EASTERN TRACK UDYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE 5, KOLKATA, 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)

…ee Shri Anant Himatsingka is son in law of Shri R. K. Gupta from whom he has received cash loan but this is not a cash loan rather this is a financial support to assessee. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Natvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh (2008) 303 ITR 5 (Guj) has noted the fact and given finding that amounts, which are mere book entries and transactions on behalf of family members does not violate the provisions of section 269SS and 269T and penalty cannot be imposed for violation M/s Eastern Track Udyog Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1690& 1691/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 of section 269SS & 269T of the…

M/S EASTERN TRACK UDYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE 25, KOLKATA, 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)

…ee Shri Anant Himatsingka is son in law of Shri R. K. Gupta from whom he has received cash loan but this is not a cash loan rather this is a financial support to assessee. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Natvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh (2008) 303 ITR 5 (Guj) has noted the fact and given finding that amounts, which are mere book entries and transactions on behalf of family members does not violate the provisions of section 269SS and 269T and penalty cannot be imposed for violation M/s Eastern Track Udyog Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1690& 1691/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 of section 269SS & 269T of the…

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

…ritten submission. 4.4 Alternatively, the Ld. AR submitted that loan of Rs. 1,75,000 received from assessee’s wife Mrs Anjana Sinha was not liable for penalty in view of following case laws: (i) CIT versus Natwarlal Purshottamdas Parekh ( Gujarat High Court) 303 ITR 5 (ii) CIT versus Sunil Kumar Goel ( P & H High Court) 315 ITR 163 (iii) CIT versus Smt. M Yesodha ( Madras High Court) 351 ITR 265 (iv) Ashwini Kumar versus income tax officer (ITAT Delhi) 309 ITR (AT) 69 4 Sh Rajesh Kumar, New Delhi 4.5 The Ld. AR further submitted that balance loan of Rs. 1,30,000 received from a private committee cannot be consi…

ITO, WARD - 3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAGGI ISPAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/KOL/2010[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

…tial question of law arises for consideration of the court. Accordingly, we dismiss the above tax case.” We further find that the issue is also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Natvarlal Purshottamdas Pareekh (2008)303 ITR 5 (Guj), wherein Hon’ble High Court has reproduced para 18 of Tribunal’s order and confirmed the issue as under: “18. As discussed above, the annexure attached to the penalty order goes to show that each of the family members of the assessee and each one of them was having sufficient opening balance as on April 1, 1990. After that we have to look i…

CIT v. Narvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh (303 ITR 5) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax