Citation: CIT v. M. Yesodha

351 ITR 265High Court2013#2789 most cited
42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 10(2)Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSSection 271E

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271dsection 269ssection 273section 269sssection 271dsection 269section 273blevy of penaltygenuineness of the transactionsection 26section 271reasonable cause

Judgments citing Citation: CIT v. M. Yesodha

Shri. Gopal S. Pandith, Mysore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Panaji, Goa

ITA 483/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Dr.S.Sundar Rajan, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…nalty by the Tribunal was valid." 12. That the ratio of the above decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would also be squarely applicable in respect of cash transaction between the assessee and his near relatives. 13. In the case of M.Yeshodha 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. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that imposition of penalty u/s.271D of the Act cannot be sustained. The same is directed…

Shri. Gopal S. Pandith, Mysore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Panaji, Goa

ITA 482/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Dr.S.Sundar Rajan, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…nalty by the Tribunal was valid." 12. That the ratio of the above decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would also be squarely applicable in respect of cash transaction between the assessee and his near relatives. 13. In the case of M.Yeshodha 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. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that imposition of penalty u/s.271D of the Act cannot be sustained. The same is directed…

Shri. Gopal S. Pandith, Mysore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Panaji, Goa

ITA 481/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Dr.S.Sundar Rajan, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…nalty by the Tribunal was valid." 12. That the ratio of the above decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would also be squarely applicable in respect of cash transaction between the assessee and his near relatives. 13. In the case of M.Yeshodha 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. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that imposition of penalty u/s.271D of the Act cannot be sustained. The same is directed…

Shri. Gopal S. Pandith, Mysore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Panaji, Goa

ITA 480/BANG/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Dr.S.Sundar Rajan, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…nalty by the Tribunal was valid." 12. That the ratio of the above decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would also be squarely applicable in respect of cash transaction between the assessee and his near relatives. 13. In the case of M.Yeshodha 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. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that imposition of penalty u/s.271D of the Act cannot be sustained. The same is directed…

Kishan Motors, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 169/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

…ore us to contend that the present case is covered by the said decisions as follows: i) CIT vs. Saini Medical Store, 276 ITR 79 (P&H) ii) Chamundi Granites (P) ltd vs DCIT, 239 ITR 694 (Kar) III) CIT vs Smt Dimpal Yadva, 379 ITR 177(All) iv) CIT vs M Yesoda, 351 ITR 265 (Mad) 32. Taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case, first of all, we may point out that from the copies of documents available at pages 18 to 25 of paper book, we note that both the persons who have given cash loan to the assessee are relatives i.e. one brother and other is nephew. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by ld…

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

…ribunal was valid." 12. That the ratio of the above decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would also be squarely applicable in respect of cash transaction between the assessee and his near relatives. Page 9 of 10 13. In the case of M.Yeshodha 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. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that imposition of penalty u/s.271D of the Act cannot be sustained. The same is directed…

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

…nalty by the Tribunal was valid." 12. That the ratio of the above decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would also be squarely applicable in respect of cash transaction between the assessee and his near relatives. 13. In the case of M.Yeshodha 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. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that imposition of penalty u/s.271D of the Act cannot be sustained. The same is directed…

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

…nalty by the Tribunal was valid." 12. That the ratio of the above decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would also be squarely applicable in respect of cash transaction between the assessee and his near relatives. 13. In the case of M.Yeshodha 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. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that imposition of penalty u/s.271D of the Act cannot be sustained. The same is directed…

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

…Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. T.R. Rangarajan in 279 ITR 587 has held that penalty under section 271D of the Act cannot be levied on the loan received from the relatives on a Sunday. Moreover, In 4 I.T.A. No. 374/Chny/19 the case 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 l…

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

…lty by the Tribunal was valid." 12. That the ratio of the above decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would also be squarely applicable in respect of cash transaction between the assessee and his near relatives. 13. In the case of M.Yeshodha 351 ITR 265(Mad), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that transaction of loan between Page 7 of 9 father in law and daughter in law in cash cannot be subject matter of levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that imposition of penalty u/s.271D of the Act cannot be sustained. The sam…

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

…e. The assessee was under the bona fide belief that there was no breach of any provision of law and there was no intention of the assessee to evade tax. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M. Yeshodha reported in 351 ITR 265 (Mad), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has 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. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel reported in 315 ITR 16…

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

…Tribunal was valid." Page 8 of 9 12. That the ratio of the above decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would also be squarely applicable in respect of cash transaction between the assessee and his near relatives. 13. In the case of M.Yeshodha 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. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that imposition of penalty u/s.271D of the Act cannot be sustained. The same is directed…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Suresh L. Wadhawa (HUF), Ulhasnagar

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1703/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 276S

…nable cause, dl CIT vs. Shree Ambica Flour Mills Corporation (Guj High Court) 6 DTK 169-The intention behind provisions is curbing of black money - transaction recorded in books - only a technical / venial breach, e} CIT vs Smt. M. Yesodha (Madras High Court) 351 ITR 265- genuine transaction between family members is a reasonable cause Q CIT vs. Dhayam Publication 285 ITR 221 (Madras) - not applicable to current account type transactions g) CIT vs Saini Medical Store 276 ITR 79 - No intention to evade taxes - No penalty. In view of the above stated facts, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case penalty u/s.…

Gokavarapu Venkata Satya Durga Prasad, Gudivada vs. The Addl.CIT, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 44/VIZ/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.44/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Gokavarapu Venkata Satya Vs. Addl.Commissioner Of Durga Prasad Income Tax 7/258A, Tilak Road Range-1 Gudivada Vijayawada [Pan :Abrpg3704F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shr Im.Madhusudan, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Djp Anand, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11 .04.2018

For Appellant: Shr iM.Madhusudan, ARFor Respondent: Shri DJP Anand, DR
Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि, न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री डड.एस. सुन्दर ससंह, ऱेखा सदस्य के समऺ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.44/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Gokavarapu Venkata Satya Vs. Addl.Commissioner of Durga Prasad Income Tax 7/258A, Tilak Road Range-1 Gudivada Vijayawada [PAN :ABRPG3704F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shr iM.Madhusudan, AR प्रत्यथी की ओर से /…

Smt Deepika, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-5, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 561/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.561/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt. Deepika, C/O M/S. T M Marketing (India), 12, Ground Floor, Tulsi Plaza, S.V. Lane, 3Rd Cross, Chickpet, Bangalore-560 053. …. Appellant. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 5, Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate. Respondent By : Smt. Padma Meenkashi, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017. O R D E R Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. : This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dt.7.12.2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore-2 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit (Appeals) Whereby The Cit (Appeals) Confirmed The Order Of The Assessing Officer Imposing Penalty On The Assessee Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act').

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenkashi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

…ty by the Tribunal was valid." 7 12. That the ratio of the above decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would also be squarely applicable in respect of cash transaction between the assessee and his near relatives. 13. In the case of M.Yeshodha 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. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that imposition of penalty u/s.271D of the Act cannot be sustained. The same is directed…

Hemalatha Jhabakh, Coimbatore vs. Addl.CIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1097/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Mr.A.Srinivasan, JCIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…ot shown to be false or improbable or ITA No.2026/Mds/2015 & :- 5 -: implausible and the transaction having been found to be genuine, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. M.Yeshoda reported in 351 ITR 265, we are of the view that the penalties levied u/s.271D & u/s.271E are liable to be cancelled in so far as the assessee has given a reasonable explanation and has shown the reasonable cause and we do so. 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on September 27, 2017, at Chennai. (अ"ाहम प…

Hemalatha Jhabakh, Coimbatore vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2026/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Mr.A.Srinivasan, JCIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…ot shown to be false or improbable or ITA No.2026/Mds/2015 & :- 5 -: implausible and the transaction having been found to be genuine, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. M.Yeshoda reported in 351 ITR 265, we are of the view that the penalties levied u/s.271D & u/s.271E are liable to be cancelled in so far as the assessee has given a reasonable explanation and has shown the reasonable cause and we do so. 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on September 27, 2017, at Chennai. (अ"ाहम प…

Narayanji Spices & Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 810/JPR/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2017AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gogra, CA and Shri S.S. Gogra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 271DSection 271E

…the order of the ld. CIT(A) sustaining the penalty levied by AO was not justified and same was set 12 M/s. Naryanji Spices and Pulses (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT, Central Range, Jaipur aside. Followed principle laid down in case of CIT vs. M Yesodha,(Madras High Court 351 ITR 265). 5. CIT vs. Ajana Dyeing & Printing Mills (2003) 264 ITR 505 (Raj) – Held that while levying penalty u/s 271D for violation of provisions of Section 269SS adjustment of Rs. 20,000/- is to be allowed which is permissible u/s 269SS. 6. Sudha Agro & Chemical Industries vs. Addl. CIT (2016) – Tax Publisher (DT) 2783 –( Vishakhapatnam Tribunal ) –…

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

…ent 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 have perused the orders and heard the rival contention. 6. There is no dispute that loan was taken by wife from husband. No doubt on the genuineness of the transaction or source the money was ever raised by the Revenue. The transactions were p…

S.Vasundara Devi, Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1520/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1520/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A.S Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Lakshminarayanan, JCIT
Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1520/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2009-10 Smt. S Vasundara Devi Vs. The Jt. Commissioner of 2/171, Kumudham Nagar Income Tax Villankurichi Road Range II Coimbatore 641 035 Coimbatore [PAN ABGPV 3470 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri A.S Sriraman, Advocate ""यथ" क"…