CIT vs Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P.) Ltd 304 ITR 417 (2008) (Mad.); 9. CIT v. Speedways Rubber (P.) Ltd. (326 ITR 31)

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

…he share application money or deposit in current account cannot be included in the definition of deposit so as to trigger the provision of section 269SS of A.T. Act. Further, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Speedways Rubber Pvt Ltd 326 ITR 31 (P&H) clearly held that if the transaction was bonafide and default was of technical nature, then, the penalty is not justified because of share application money or deposit in current account cannot be included in the definition of deposit but in any case, even assumed otherwise, then, the defect is only of technical nature and there was a bonafi…

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

…We decline to admit the appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 18. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Speedways Rubber (P) Ltd., passed in IT Appeal No.361 of 2009, dated 22nd October, 2009/(2010) 326 ITR 31, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works (P) Ltd.(supra), has observed as under :- 4. We have heard learned counsal for the appellant. 5. The only point which has been pressed is that the amount should have been held to be loan or deposit, as held in Bhalotia Engineering Works…

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

…We decline to admit the appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 18. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Speedways Rubber (P) Ltd., passed in IT Appeal No.361 of 2009, dated 22nd October, 2009/(2010) 326 ITR 31, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works (P) Ltd.(supra), has observed as under :- 4. We have heard learned counsal for the appellant. 5. The only point which has been pressed is that the amount should have been held to be loan or deposit, as held in Bhalotia Engineering Works…

SH. PREM SINGH SAINI,SIKAR vs. ADDL. CIT, SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 952/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271D

…h, finding on such aspect can be said to be finding of facts based on material on record. Whether a particular finding of fact is correct or not, is not a question which could be examined by this Court in this appeal.” CIT Vs. Speedways Rubber (P) Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 31 (P&H) (HC) The head note of this case is as under:- “Penalty under s. 271D—Contravention of s. 269SS—Assessee accepted share application money being Rs. 20,000 in cash—Penalty levied under s. 271D deleted by CIT(A) holding that transaction was bona fide and default was of technical nature—Tribunal affirmed the order of CIT(A)—Finding to the effec…

SH. PREM SINGH SAINI,SIKAR vs. ADDL. CIT, SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 951/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271D

…h, finding on such aspect can be said to be finding of facts based on material on record. Whether a particular finding of fact is correct or not, is not a question which could be examined by this Court in this appeal.” CIT Vs. Speedways Rubber (P) Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 31 (P&H) (HC) The head note of this case is as under:- “Penalty under s. 271D—Contravention of s. 269SS—Assessee accepted share application money being Rs. 20,000 in cash—Penalty levied under s. 271D deleted by CIT(A) holding that transaction was bona fide and default was of technical nature—Tribunal affirmed the order of CIT(A)—Finding to the effec…

BHALCHANDRA P. DALVI,GHAHTKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 27 (1) (2), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2492/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhalchandra P. Dalvi, Vs. Ito-Ward 27(1)(2), 1, Hemalaya Society, It-Office, Vashi Milind Nagar, Near Railway Station Sungrace English Building, School,Ghatkopar(W), Navimumbai-400705. Mumbai-400084. Pan/Gir No. : Aampd3092P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & Shri B.R.Vyas.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Ashokkumarambastha,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec271D & U/Sec250 Of The Act. 1. The Learned Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax 27(1) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271D Amounting To Rupees 24,50,000/- Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand As Well As Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Confirming The Same. Bhalachandra P. Dalvi.Mumbai. 2.1 The Appellant Has Received Rupees 18,50,000/- Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Cash Against Sale Of Flat & Rs.6,00,000/- Amount Raised From Lenders Which Amount Was Less Than Rupees Twenty Thousand Out Of Rupees Six Lakhs, Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Is Already Taxed As Income & Balance Loans Are Accepted As Genuine & Each Loans Less Than Rs.20,000/- Considering Above Facts & Circumstances No Penalty U/S 271D Can Be Levied & Same Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri.AshokKumarAmbastha,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271D

…ann 178 (P & H HC) 10. Pankaj Investment Vs. ACIT, 46 ITR (T) 345 Mumbai. 11. Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT, [2002] 80 ITD 484 12. Karnataka Ginning & Pressing factors Vs. JCIT, [2001] 77 ITD 478 (Mumbai) 13. CIT Vs. Speedways Rubber (P) Ltd, [2010] 326 ITR 31 14. Hindusthan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26. 15. OMEC Engineeris Vs. CIT, 294 ITR 599 16. CIT Vs. Mudhav Enterprises (P) Ltd, 356 ITR 588, Guj 8. We find that the assessing officer in the asseseement order U/sec143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act has made addition of cash loans below Rs.20,000/-each aggregating to Rs.6,00,000/- as unexplained…

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

…sh, finding on such aspect can be said to be finding of facts based on material on record. Whether a particular finding of fact is correct or not, is not a question which could be examined by this Court in this appeal.” CIT Vs. Speedways Rubber (P) Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 31 (Punjab) (HC) The head note of this case is as under:- “Penalty under s. 271D—Contravention of s. 269SS—Assessee accepted share application money being Rs. 20,000 in cash—Penalty levied under s. 271D deleted by CIT(A) holding that transaction was bona fide and default was of technical nature—Tribunal affirmed the order of CIT(A)—Finding to the eff…

M/S H. K. INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD ,VARANSI vs. JOINT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANSI

ITA 46/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Viswakarma,CITD.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…nch DB, in the case of Sunil Kumar v. Addl. CIT, in ITA no. 203 & 204/JP/2018, reported in (2019) 33 NYPTTJ 26(JP) h) Judgment and Order passed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Speedways Rubber Private Limited, reported in (2010) 326 ITR 31(P&H HC). i) Appellate Order dated 21.10.2021 passed by ITAT, Jaipur A Bench DB, in the case of Smt. Meera Devi Kumawat v. JCIT, in ITA no. 1201(JP) of 2019, reported in (2022) 193 ITD 250(JP-trib.) j) Appellate Order dated 05.12.2019 passed by ITAT, Mumbai G Bench DB, in the case of Surendra Engineering Corporation v. JCIT, in ITA no. 2386(Mum) of…

RAM SINGH,KARNAL vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1457/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Ram Singh, Vs. Addl. CIT, H. No. 1550, Sector-7, Range Karnal Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana PAN :AZQPS7536M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Indu Sen, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 11.08.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned Commissio…

RAMAN CHAUDHARY,KARNAL vs. ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1456/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Raman Chaudhary, Vs. ACIT, H. No. 1550, Sector-7, Special Range, Urban Estate, Karnal, Karnal Haryana PAN :AFOPC1631G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Indu Sen, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 11.08.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned…

SABINA MUYEENUDDIN,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1040/Mds/ 2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Surpriyo Pal, IRS, JCIT

Section 268Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble P & H High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR 163. (iv) There can be no penalty u/s.271D of the Act on genuine transactions. Reliance was placed on judgment of P& H (2010) 326 ITR 31. (v) Urgent necessity is a reasonable cause for levying penalty. Reliance was placed on the judgments of Jurisdictional High :- 5 -: Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratna Agencies (2006) 284 ITR 609 and CIT vs. M. Yesodha (2013) 351 ITR 265. 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative e supported the order of the lower authorities. We hav…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. KAVITA BEHAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6529/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Saxena & Sh. Devinder KFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR

Section 271DSection 271E

…012] 26 taxmann.com 264 (Agra Tribunal) (m) Bright Play Centre vs. Addl. CIT 2011-TIOL-712-ITAT- AHM (n) OMEC Engineers vs. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) (o) CIT vs. T. Perumal (Indl.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad.) (p) CIT vs. Speedways Rubber Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 31 (P&H). 9. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities as well as the case laws cited by both the parties. I find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed the issue in dispute by considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and adjudicated th…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. KAVITA BEHAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6528/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Saxena & Sh. Devinder KFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR

Section 271DSection 271E

…012] 26 taxmann.com 264 (Agra Tribunal) (m) Bright Play Centre vs. Addl. CIT 2011-TIOL-712-ITAT- AHM (n) OMEC Engineers vs. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) (o) CIT vs. T. Perumal (Indl.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad.) (p) CIT vs. Speedways Rubber Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 31 (P&H). 9. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities as well as the case laws cited by both the parties. I find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed the issue in dispute by considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and adjudicated th…