CIT v. Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P.) Ltd.

304 ITR 417High Court2008#7838 most cited

What is CIT v. Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P.) Ltd. authority for?

A difference of opinion between tax authorities, when established, can prevent reassessment proceedings.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners · reassessment · difference of opinion · Section 147 · Section 148 · escapement of income · AO · CIT(A)

Judgments citing CIT v. Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P.) Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. James Hotels Ltd, Chandigarh

ITA 552/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

For Appellant: Shri R.K. KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271D

…posits. It has been further emphasized that as per Companies (Acceptance and Deposits) Rule 1974, deposit would not include any amount received from the directors of shareholders of the company. Further in CIT vs Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners Pvt (2008) (Madras) 304 ITR 417, it has been held that the money in cash by a company towards allotment of shares, was neither a loan nor a deposit. Further, reliance was placed in the case of M/s Iqbal Inn and Hotels Ltd vs JClT (ITA no. 876 to 879/Chd/2013) pronounced on 30.01.2015 wherein the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that the share application money or depos…

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

…n the Assessment Order, no additions have been madeon account of share application money, which clearly means that source of share capital were found to be genuine Another case cited by the Respondent is CIT vs. Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners (P) Limited, (2008) 304 ITR 417 (Mad.) contained in page no 14 of the CIT (A) order. In the instant case, the assessee had received cash over a period of time as advance towards allotment of shares from 16 persons without stipulating any time frame towards return/refund of money without interest, in case of non-allotment of shares either fully or partly. It was held by the Madr…

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

…n the Assessment Order, no additions have been madeon account of share application money, which clearly means that source of share capital were found to be genuine Another case cited by the Respondent is CIT vs. Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners (P) Limited, (2008) 304 ITR 417 (Mad.) contained in page no 14 of the CIT (A) order. In the instant case, the assessee had received cash over a period of time as advance towards allotment of shares from 16 persons without stipulating any time frame towards return/refund of money without interest, in case of non-allotment of shares either fully or partly. It was held by the Madr…

Piyush Juneja, Khandwa vs. JCIT Range-4 Indore, Indore

In the result, the appeal if the assessee is allowed in terms as

ITA 84/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Piyush Juneja, Jt.Commissioner 10,Anand Nagar, Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Khandwa Range 4, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Aolpj9133N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2024

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 269TSection 271ESection 273BSection 690T

…e or account payee demand draft aggregating to Rs 10,000 or more. Similar rationale thus applies in the context of repayment as provided u/s 269T of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners (P) Ltd reported in (2008) 304 ITR 417 has similarly held that the rationale behind provisions of section 269SS and 269T is to prevent tax evasion i.e, laundering of concealed income by the parties in the guise of cash loans or deposits in or outside the accounts. Therefore, we donot agree with the findings of the ld. Additional CIT that even where the assessee’s submissions are consi…

ACIT, Circle - 11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sunplant Construction Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2138/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 2138/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Appellant Circle-11(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- M/S. Sunplant Construction Limited,........Respondent 3Rd Floor, Rtc House, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Moulali, Kolkata-700014 [Pan:Aakcs9090D] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 27I

…ugh the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR in support of his contention that the provision of Sec. 271D does not apply in case of Share application money. The decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Pvt. Ltd 304 ITR 417 is squarely applicable on the facts of the case wherein the Hon'ble Court has categorically held that the share application money is not loan or deposit and hence not falls u/s 269T of the Act and deleted penalty u/s 271E of the Act. 4.2.4. In view of the above discussion and in the absence of any contrary material available on record, I do not f…

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

…ITA No.191/Coch/2014 Assanar & Sons, Kottayam IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH: COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assanar & Sons Kanjirappally JCIT Kottayam Range Kottayam 686 507 Vs. Kottayam PAN NO : AADFA6784E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Thomas Cherian, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee in this case originally came in appeal before this Tribunal agai…

M/S. Shree Kaila Devi Real Estate Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 857/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 68

…an Properties (P.) Ltd, New Delhi [ITA No.724/Del/2012] order dated 24.01.2013 (ITAT, Delhi Bench); 7. ITO vs M/s Nandlala Securities (P.) Ltd. [ITA no.3043/Del/2013] order dated 07.01.2015 (ITAT, Delhi Bench);; 8. CIT vs Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P.) Ltd 304 ITR 417 (2008) (Mad.); 9. CIT vs Speedways Rubber (P.) Ltd. 326 ITR 31 (Punjab & Haryana High Court); 10. CIT vs Kardah Lexoplast (P.) Ltd. [ITA No.-184/99] (Allahabad High Court) 6.1. Accordingly relying upon the aforesaid decisions it was submitted that if for a moment it is considered that there is a decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court…

M/S. Global Realty Heritage Venture (Cochin) (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 856/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 68

…an Properties (P.) Ltd, New Delhi [ITA No.724/Del/2012] order dated 24.01.2013 (ITAT, Delhi Bench); 7. ITO vs M/s Nandlala Securities (P.) Ltd. [ITA no.3043/Del/2013] order dated 07.01.2015 (ITAT, Delhi Bench);; 8. CIT vs Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P.) Ltd 304 ITR 417 (2008) (Mad.); 9. CIT vs Speedways Rubber (P.) Ltd. 326 ITR 31 (Punjab & Haryana High Court); 10. CIT vs Kardah Lexoplast (P.) Ltd. [ITA No.-184/99] (Allahabad High Court) 6.1. Accordingly relying upon the aforesaid decisions it was submitted that if for a moment it is considered that there is a decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court…

M/S. Fortune Developers International (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 855/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 68

…an Properties (P.) Ltd, New Delhi [ITA No.724/Del/2012] order dated 24.01.2013 (ITAT, Delhi Bench); 7. ITO vs M/s Nandlala Securities (P.) Ltd. [ITA no.3043/Del/2013] order dated 07.01.2015 (ITAT, Delhi Bench);; 8. CIT vs Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P.) Ltd 304 ITR 417 (2008) (Mad.); 9. CIT vs Speedways Rubber (P.) Ltd. 326 ITR 31 (Punjab & Haryana High Court); 10. CIT vs Kardah Lexoplast (P.) Ltd. [ITA No.-184/99] (Allahabad High Court) 6.1. Accordingly relying upon the aforesaid decisions it was submitted that if for a moment it is considered that there is a decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court…

M/S. Gagan Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 786/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 68

…an Properties (P.) Ltd, New Delhi [ITA No.724/Del/2012] order dated 24.01.2013 (ITAT, Delhi Bench); 7. ITO vs M/s Nandlala Securities (P.) Ltd. [ITA no.3043/Del/2013] order dated 07.01.2015 (ITAT, Delhi Bench);; 8. CIT vs Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P.) Ltd 304 ITR 417 (2008) (Mad.); 9. CIT vs Speedways Rubber (P.) Ltd. 326 ITR 31 (Punjab & Haryana High Court); 10. CIT vs Kardah Lexoplast (P.) Ltd. [ITA No.-184/99] (Allahabad High Court) 6.1. Accordingly relying upon the aforesaid decisions it was submitted that if for a moment it is considered that there is a decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court…

M/S. Gagan Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 68

…an Properties (P.) Ltd, New Delhi [ITA No.724/Del/2012] order dated 24.01.2013 (ITAT, Delhi Bench); 7. ITO vs M/s Nandlala Securities (P.) Ltd. [ITA no.3043/Del/2013] order dated 07.01.2015 (ITAT, Delhi Bench);; 8. CIT vs Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P.) Ltd 304 ITR 417 (2008) (Mad.); 9. CIT vs Speedways Rubber (P.) Ltd. 326 ITR 31 (Punjab & Haryana High Court); 10. CIT vs Kardah Lexoplast (P.) Ltd. [ITA No.-184/99] (Allahabad High Court) 6.1. Accordingly relying upon the aforesaid decisions it was submitted that if for a moment it is considered that there is a decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Shri Sidhdata Ispat (P) Ltd

ITA/1247/2011HC Delhi20 Sept 2012
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271B

…owed.” 7. The question which this Court has to consider is whether the view of the Tribunal, following the Madras High Court judgment and setting-aside the penalty is justified. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners P. Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 417 (Mad), the Madras High Court was of the view that if the explanation of an assessee is plausible, then in terms of Section 273B, no penalty can be imposed for infringement of various provisions, including Section 271D. The relevant discussion in this regard is as follows: “The above section provides that if the assessee proves that there is…

CIT vs. Numero Uno Financial Services Pvt Ltd

ITA/857/2011HC Delhi05 Mar 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 271D

….L. Anand (1998) 230 ITR 522 and Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs ACME Educational Society (2010) 326 ITR 146 (Del). Decision of Madras High Court in ITA 857/2011 Page 4 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners (P) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 417 was also considered and examined. 8. Thus, the first and the foremost aspect, which has to be considered and examined is whether the amount received was loan or deposit. This aspect has not been considered and examined by the tribunal in spite of the specific findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals). In these cir…

CIT vs. Numero Uno Financial Services Pvt Ltd

ITA - 857 / 2011HC Delhi05 Mar 2012
Section 271D

…230 ITR 522 and Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs ACME Educational Society (2010) 326 ITR 146 (Del). Decision of Madras High Court in 2012:DHC:1558-DB ITA 857/2011 Page 4 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners (P) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 417 was also considered and examined. 8. Thus, the first and the foremost aspect, which has to be considered and examined is whether the amount received was loan or deposit. This aspect has not been considered and examined by the tribunal in spite of the specific findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals). In these cir…

CIT v. Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P.) Ltd. (304 ITR 417) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax