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

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…inha was not liable for penalty in view of following case laws: (i) CIT versus Natwarlal Purshottamdas Parekh ( Gujarat High Court) 303 ITR 5 (ii) CIT versus Sunil Kumar Goel ( P & H High Court) 315 ITR 163 (iii) CIT versus Smt. M Yesodha ( Madras High Court) 351 ITR 265 (iv) Ashwini Kumar versus income tax officer (ITAT Delhi) 309 ITR (AT) 69 4 Sh Rajesh Kumar, New Delhi 4.5 The Ld. AR further submitted that balance loan of Rs. 1,30,000 received from a private committee cannot be considered for levy of penalty as it was a accepted business practice that private committees formed by like-minded people who contri…

B.Raajaraajan, Erode vs. JCIT, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1371/CHNY/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1371/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 271D

…of the bank statements to show that the amount was deposited in the bank and it was cleared on the 5 I.T.A. No.1371/Mds/15 very next day for honouring the cheque issued by him. This Tribunal found that the Madras High Court in CIT v. Smt. M. Yesodha (2013) 351 ITR 265 had an occasion to consider an identical issue. The Madras High Court found that a transaction between close relatives, i.e. assessee and his daughter-in-law and father-in-law, was a reasonable transaction and genuine one due to urgent necessity in paying the money to seller. In this case also, the assessee admittedly received cash from his fat…