CIT v. Raj Kumar Sharma

294 ITR 131High Court2007#12607 most cited
8

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

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 271E

Judgments citing CIT v. Raj Kumar Sharma

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

…50 TTJ 130 at 153, Dillu Cine Enterprises Ltd. v/s Ad. CIT 80 ITD 484 (Hyd.) also Chandra Cement Ltd. Vs. DCIT 23 TW 160 (JP) and Hissariya Brothers v/s JCIT 73 TTJ 1 (JD). 4.1 Covered matter: The Honble Raj. High Court in the case of CIT V/s Raj Kumar Sharma 294 ITR 131 (Raj.) It has been held that reasonable cause for the purpose of penalty u/s 271D- Tribunal having accepted that bonafide belief of the assessee that cash transaction below of Rs. 20,000/- did not attract penalty u/s 271D constituted reasonable cause even though total cash loan obtained by the assessee from his brother on various dates aggregate…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 Karnataka Agro Chemicals Vs. The Additional Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, No.43C, Hoskote Industrial Area, Range 4(1), Hoskote, Bengaluru – 562 114. Bengaluru. PAN: AAACK 5533F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri SreeHariKutsa, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal…

SMT. MEERA DEVI KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1201/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Sanghi (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…ide belief that she had received contribution from her family member and, therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. 7. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Raj Kumar Sharma (2007) 294 ITR 131 (Raj) has held as under: “7. Section 271D of the Income-tax Act provides for penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. According to this provision, if a person, inter alia, accepts any loan in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, he shall be liable to pay, by way…

SHRI JOGENDRA SINGH VILL-KUNDALI, DIST-SIKAR,SIKAR vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE, SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 879/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R.A. Verma (Tax Practitioner)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…ble cause for receiving the amount in cash and repayment of the same in cash and, therefore, the case of the assessee falls under section 273B of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. Raj Kumar Sharma 294 ITR 131 (Raj.) Shri Jogendra Singh, Sikar. CIT vs. Saini Medical Store 277 ITR 420 ( P&H) CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel 315 ITR 163 ( P&H) 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that there is no dispute that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in cash and also repaid the same in cash. Therefore, there is a violation of provisions of…

SHRI JOGENDRA SINGH VILL-KUNDALI, DIST-SIKAR,SIKAR vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE, SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 878/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R.A. Verma (Tax Practitioner)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…ble cause for receiving the amount in cash and repayment of the same in cash and, therefore, the case of the assessee falls under section 273B of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. Raj Kumar Sharma 294 ITR 131 (Raj.) Shri Jogendra Singh, Sikar. CIT vs. Saini Medical Store 277 ITR 420 ( P&H) CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel 315 ITR 163 ( P&H) 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that there is no dispute that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in cash and also repaid the same in cash. Therefore, there is a violation of provisions of…

CALCUTTA TENT MANUFACTURING CO.,,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 44, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 183/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

…ceiving as well as repaying loan exceeds ₹20,000/- statutory limit prescribed u/s.269SS and u/s 269T of the Act. The assessee had obtained its cash loan from relatives of its partners. Hon'ble Rajasthan high court’s decision in CIT vs. Raj Kumar Sharma (2007) 294 ITR 131 (Raj) holds that the impugned penalt(ies) are not sustainable in case the transactions in question do not exceed the specified limit of ₹20,000/-. The assessee therein had taken aggregate loan(s) of ₹90,000/- in the relevant previous forming subject-matter of adjudication. We therefore conclude in the instant case as well that both the lower auth…

CALCUTTA TENT MANUFACTURING CO.,,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 44, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 182/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

…ceiving as well as repaying loan exceeds ₹20,000/- statutory limit prescribed u/s.269SS and u/s 269T of the Act. The assessee had obtained its cash loan from relatives of its partners. Hon'ble Rajasthan high court’s decision in CIT vs. Raj Kumar Sharma (2007) 294 ITR 131 (Raj) holds that the impugned penalt(ies) are not sustainable in case the transactions in question do not exceed the specified limit of ₹20,000/-. The assessee therein had taken aggregate loan(s) of ₹90,000/- in the relevant previous forming subject-matter of adjudication. We therefore conclude in the instant case as well that both the lower auth…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SMT VIJESH DEVI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of

ITA 941/JPR/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv) &For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, (DCIT)
Section 268A(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

…d on the assessee for contravention of Section 271D of the Act. The above view also get supports from the various case laws relied by the ld AR of the assessee including decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma (2007) 294 ITR 131 (Raj) and decision of ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Kusum Dhamani Vs ITA 941/JP/2012 & 36/JP/2013_ 7 DCIT Vs. Vijesh Devi ADDl.CIT in ITA No. 847/JP/2011. Therefore, by considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I delete the penalty sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dism…

CIT v. Raj Kumar Sharma (294 ITR 131) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax