CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel

315 ITR 163High Court2009#1518 most cited

What is CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel authority for?

A genuine personal transaction or a non-returnable transfer between family members or related entities does not constitute a 'loan' or 'deposit' under Section 269SS, and therefore, no penalty can be levied under Section 271D.

75

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel · Section 269SS · Section 271D · loan or deposit · genuine transaction · personal expenses · inter-family transfer · penalty deletion · violation 269SS · non-returnable

Also reported as

183 Taxmann 53

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 271ESection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 269TSection 44ABSection 254
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 269tsection 269ssection 271epenalty under section 271dsection 269section 273section 269sssection 271ddeletion of penaltysection 273blevy of penaltysection 26

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel

Smt Savita S Gongadshett, Bagalkot vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vijayapur Range, Vijayapur

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

ITA 116/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No.116(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Savita S Gangadshetti, Gorbal Naka, At Ilkal, Tal. Hungund, Bagalkot Dist. Pan No.Aclpg6870B Appellant Vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vijayapur Range, Vijayapur. Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S.Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M. Vijaykumar, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Vijaykumar, Addl.CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “C”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.116(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Savita S Gangadshetti, Gorbal Naka, At Ilkal, Tal. Hungund, Bagalkot Dist. Pan No.ACLPG6870B Appellant Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayapur Range, Vijayapur. Respondent Appellant by : Shri B.S.Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri M. Vijaykumar, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 07-11-2019 Date of pronouncement : 20-01-2020 O R D E R PER SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The appeal…

Mr.Mohammadyusuf R.Dargad, Dharwad vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-2, Hubli

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

ITA 289/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti S. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…the Act as near relatives cannot be said to be “Other person” within the meaning of Sec.269SS of the Act. In any event in the circumstances of the case, there was reasonable cause for accepting loans in cash. 11. In the case of CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel [2009] 315 ITR 163/183 Taxman 53 , the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under : "A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof was contained in the compilation of accounts, and which had no tax effect, established 'reasonable cause' under section 273B of the Act.…

Mr.Mohammadysuf R, Dargad, Dharwad vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-2, Hubbali

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

ITA 288/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti S. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…the Act as near relatives cannot be said to be “Other person” within the meaning of Sec.269SS of the Act. In any event in the circumstances of the case, there was reasonable cause for accepting loans in cash. 11. In the case of CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel [2009] 315 ITR 163/183 Taxman 53 , the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under : "A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof was contained in the compilation of accounts, and which had no tax effect, established 'reasonable cause' under section 273B of the Act.…

Neeraj Suwalka, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 160/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…of judicial pronouncements have been passed in favour of assessee in respect of those provisions, a few of which are as under: • Addl. CIT vs. Smt. Prahati Baruah (2003) 133 Taxman 74. • Dr. B.G. Panda vs. DCIT 111 Taxman 86. • CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR 163. 16. It was accordingly submitted that in the present case, it is undisputed fact that the payment was made to the wife of the assessee Smt. Sunita Suwalka in whose case also search was executed and the assessment have been completed u/s 153A by the same Assessing officer thus neither there was any question of non disclosure of transaction nor th…

Neeraj Suwalka, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 159/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…of judicial pronouncements have been passed in favour of assessee in respect of those provisions, a few of which are as under: • Addl. CIT vs. Smt. Prahati Baruah (2003) 133 Taxman 74. • Dr. B.G. Panda vs. DCIT 111 Taxman 86. • CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR 163. 16. It was accordingly submitted that in the present case, it is undisputed fact that the payment was made to the wife of the assessee Smt. Sunita Suwalka in whose case also search was executed and the assessment have been completed u/s 153A by the same Assessing officer thus neither there was any question of non disclosure of transaction nor th…

Neeraj Suwalka, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 158/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2019AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…of judicial pronouncements have been passed in favour of assessee in respect of those provisions, a few of which are as under: • Addl. CIT vs. Smt. Prahati Baruah (2003) 133 Taxman 74. • Dr. B.G. Panda vs. DCIT 111 Taxman 86. • CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR 163. 16. It was accordingly submitted that in the present case, it is undisputed fact that the payment was made to the wife of the assessee Smt. Sunita Suwalka in whose case also search was executed and the assessment have been completed u/s 153A by the same Assessing officer thus neither there was any question of non disclosure of transaction nor th…

Sri Hiranmoy Gon, Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range - 9, 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A “ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM ITA No. 143/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010­11 Sri Hiranmoy Gon Vs. J.C.I.T, Range­9, Kolkata PAN: ADOPG9812 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Chiranjit Goswami, FCA, ld.AR Respondent by : Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 02­09­2019 \घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 08­11 ­2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2010­11, is directed against the order dated 28­11­201…

R.M.Kishore, Chennai vs. JCIT Non Corporate Range 7, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 374/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 374/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri R.M. Kishore, The Joint Commissioner Of No. 83, Plot No. 2981, 1St Street, Vs. Income Tax, Z-Block, 13Th Main Road, Annanagar, Non Corporate Range 7, Chennai 600 040. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Ahspk2751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 21.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of ₹.10,85,000/- Levied Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…of M. Yeshodha in 351 ITR 265 (Mad), the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that transaction of loan between father in law and daughter in law in cash cannot be subject matter of levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act. Further, In the case of CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel 315 ITR 163, Hon’ble Punjab & Harayana High Court has held that penalty under section 271D/271E of the Act cannot be levied on the loan received from sister concern if the assessee has substantiated reasonable cause under section 273B of the Act. 4.2 Further, we find that the object of introducing section 269SS of the Act is to ensure that a taxpayer is not…

Shri Jogendra Singh Vill-Kundali, Dist-Sikar, Sikar vs. Addl. CIT Range, 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

…alls 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 section 269SS and 269T and consequently the penal provisions of section 271D and 271E are attracted in this case. The ass…

Shri Jogendra Singh Vill-Kundali, Dist-Sikar, Sikar vs. Addl. CIT Range, 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

…alls 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 section 269SS and 269T and consequently the penal provisions of section 271D and 271E are attracted in this case. The ass…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Satvinder Singh Wadhawan, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

ITA 3081/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271DSection 271E

…ical Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 328 e) ACIT vs. Gujrat Ambuja proteins Ltd. (2004) 89 TTJ (Ahd.) 324 f) ITO Vs. Amar Nath Shivraj (HUF) (2004) 1 SOT 346 (Agra) g) Sunflower Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (Pune) h) CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goyal (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) i) Ramlal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 j) S. R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) k) CIT vs. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (2008) 304 ITR 172 (Raj.) 7.1 In the following cases, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT have also cancelled the penalties lev,ed u/s 271D even where loans/deposits were taken in cash…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Satvinder Singh Washawan, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

ITA 3082/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271DSection 271E

…ical Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 328 e) ACIT vs. Gujrat Ambuja proteins Ltd. (2004) 89 TTJ (Ahd.) 324 f) ITO Vs. Amar Nath Shivraj (HUF) (2004) 1 SOT 346 (Agra) g) Sunflower Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (Pune) h) CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goyal (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) i) Ramlal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 j) S. R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) k) CIT vs. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (2008) 304 ITR 172 (Raj.) 7.1 In the following cases, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT have also cancelled the penalties lev,ed u/s 271D even where loans/deposits were taken in cash…

Sri Rajiv Manharlal Duseja, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2323/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Preethi S Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2007-08 Sri Rajiv Manharlal Duseja, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax No.39, Nanjappa Road, Circle-2(1), Shanthinagar, Bangalore. Bangalore-560 027. PAN – ADJPD 9123 D.. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Preethi S Patel, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. P.V Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 04.06.2019 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member The assessee has filed this appeal challenging…

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

…that transaction of loan between father-in-law and daughter-in-law in cash cannot be subject matter of levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel reported in 315 ITR 163, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that ‘A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof was contained in the compilation of accounts, and which had no tax effect, established 'reasonable cause' under section 273 B of th…

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

…lty cannot be levied under section 271D and or section 271E, if the assessee 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…

Sh. Vikram Sood, Manali vs. Addl. CIT, Mandi Range, Mandi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1487/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Chandrakanta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

…Act, therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 271D of the Act was not justified. Reliance was placed on the following case laws:- 1. CIT Vs. Saini Medical Store, 277 ITR 420 (P&H) 2. CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goes, 315 ITR 163 (P&H) 3. CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, 379 ITR 521 (SC) 4. Mohinder Pal Singh, Ramneek Sehgal & Paramjeet Kaur Vs. The Addl. CIT, ITA Nos. 192 to 197/Chd/2018, order dated 8.6.2018. 5. Binod Kumar Agarwal Vs. JCIT, ITA Nos. 238 & 238/Kol./2013 order dated 4.2.2016 6. Smt. S.B. Patil Vs. JCIT, ITA Nos.1053 & 1054/BNG./2014order dated 10.2.2016 7.…

Sri Sanmathi Ambanna, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Davanagere Range, Davanagere

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 782/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Sanmathi Ambanna, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Prop: M/S. Mahadevi Transport, Income-Tax, Railway Station Road, Davanagere Range, Challakere, Davanagere. Chitradurga – 577 522. Pan : Agjpa 3024 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas K. Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : .12.2018

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273

…the Act as near relatives cannot be said to be "Other person" within the meaning of Sec.269SS of the Act. In any event in the circumstances of the case, there was reasonable cause for accepting loans in cash. 11. In the case of CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel [2009] 315 ITR 163/183 Taxman 53 , the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under : "A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof was contained in the compilation of accounts, and which had no tax effect, established 'reasonable cause' under section 273B of the Act.…

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Range VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 196/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 192 & 193/Chd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Shri Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. The Addl. CIT 8-A, Kitchlu Nagar Range- VII Ludhiana Ludhiana PAN: ADVPS2237F ITA Nos. 194 & 195 /Chd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Shri Ramneek Sehgal Vs. The JCIT 8-A, Kitchlu Nagar Rang-VII Ludhiana Ludhiana PAN: AVMPS2817A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Nikhil Goyal Department by : Shri Manu Malik Date of hearing : 04/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08/06/201…

Sh. Ramneek Sehgal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Range VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 195/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 192 & 193/Chd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Shri Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. The Addl. CIT 8-A, Kitchlu Nagar Range- VII Ludhiana Ludhiana PAN: ADVPS2237F ITA Nos. 194 & 195 /Chd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Shri Ramneek Sehgal Vs. The JCIT 8-A, Kitchlu Nagar Rang-VII Ludhiana Ludhiana PAN: AVMPS2817A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Nikhil Goyal Department by : Shri Manu Malik Date of hearing : 04/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08/06/201…

Sh. Ramneek Sehgal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Range VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 194/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 192 & 193/Chd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Shri Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. The Addl. CIT 8-A, Kitchlu Nagar Range- VII Ludhiana Ludhiana PAN: ADVPS2237F ITA Nos. 194 & 195 /Chd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Shri Ramneek Sehgal Vs. The JCIT 8-A, Kitchlu Nagar Rang-VII Ludhiana Ludhiana PAN: AVMPS2817A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Nikhil Goyal Department by : Shri Manu Malik Date of hearing : 04/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08/06/201…