Commissioner of Income Tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

…, in such a back ground, no penalty ought to be levied u/s 271D or 271E of the Act and the Ld. AR drew our attention to the several case laws of the Tribunal as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noida Brodge Co. Ltd. (262 ITR 260 Del HC) wherein it was held that in lieu for payment of Rs.4.85 crores made by journal entries in its books of account by crediting the account of ILFS, would not fall foul of Section 269SS of the Act when particularly when there was no payment of cash. According to the Ld. AR of the assessee, when the assessee was under bonafide belief that pass…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

…, in such a back ground, no penalty ought to be levied u/s 271D or 271E of the Act and the Ld. AR drew our attention to the several case laws of the Tribunal as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noida Brodge Co. Ltd. (262 ITR 260 Del HC) wherein it was held that in lieu for payment of Rs.4.85 crores made by journal entries in its books of account by crediting the account of ILFS, would not fall foul of Section 269SS of the Act when particularly when there was no payment of cash. According to the Ld. AR of the assessee, when the assessee was under bonafide belief that pass…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

…, in such a back ground, no penalty ought to be levied u/s 271D or 271E of the Act and the Ld. AR drew our attention to the several case laws of the Tribunal as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noida Brodge Co. Ltd. (262 ITR 260 Del HC) wherein it was held that in lieu for payment of Rs.4.85 crores made by journal entries in its books of account by crediting the account of ILFS, would not fall foul of Section 269SS of the Act when particularly when there was no payment of cash. According to the Ld. AR of the assessee, when the assessee was under bonafide belief that pass…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

…, in such a back ground, no penalty ought to be levied u/s 271D or 271E of the Act and the Ld. AR drew our attention to the several case laws of the Tribunal as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noida Brodge Co. Ltd. (262 ITR 260 Del HC) wherein it was held that in lieu for payment of Rs.4.85 crores made by journal entries in its books of account by crediting the account of ILFS, would not fall foul of Section 269SS of the Act when particularly when there was no payment of cash. According to the Ld. AR of the assessee, when the assessee was under bonafide belief that pass…

ITO - 1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Film Waves Combines P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITO-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/s. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ ITO-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House,…

ITO - 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Laquilla Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

…on the subject that journal entries in the books of account indicating deposits / loans will not fall within the mischief of section 269SS of the Act (refer decision of as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Noida Toll Bridge Co Ltd 262 ITR 260 (Del) wherein interalia it was held in that case that payment of Rs.4.5 crores made by the assessee by a journal entry in its books of account by creating the account of ILFS would not fall in the mischief of section 269SS of the Act when particularly payment was not made in cash. Thus, we note in the present case, journal entries were made by th…

DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Lodha Developers Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…transactions carried out during the conduct of business within the group concerns or with business associates through journal entries shall attract the provisions of Sec. 269SS/269T. Even the old decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Noida Toll Bridge (262 ITR 260) it was held that the provisions shall not be attracted to business transactions through journal entries and thé said decision has been accepted by the department and no SLP was filed. d) The Bombay high court decision in the case of Triumph International is the only decision that created a somewhat ambivalent situation where it was held that acc…

DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Konwn As to M/S.Lodha Developers Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…transactions carried out during the conduct of business within the group concerns or with business associates through journal entries shall attract the provisions of Sec. 269SS/269T. Even the old decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Noida Toll Bridge (262 ITR 260) it was held that the provisions shall not be attracted to business transactions through journal entries and thé said decision has been accepted by the department and no SLP was filed. d) The Bombay high court decision in the case of Triumph International is the only decision that created a somewhat ambivalent situation where it was held that acc…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

…271D and 271E of the Act, the limitation should be counted right from the date of such reference in the assessment order / issue of show cause notice by the AO. 19. Further, the judgment of Honble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd [262 ITR 260] (Del) is relevant. We have also come across another judgment of the same High court in the case of CIT vs. Worldwide Township Projects Ltd vide ITA No.232/2014, where Honble Delhi High Court explained the above said provisions in the context of penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act. Para 8 of the said judgment of the High Court is relevant here and…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Macrotech Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result , both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…tech Developers Limited (Successor to Macrotech Construction P. Ltd., ) the book of accounts indicating deposit / loans will not fall foul of Section 269SS of the Act. Besides, the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. 262 ITR 260 inter alia held that payment of Rs.4.85 crores made by the assesses by a journal entry in its books of account by crediting the account of ILFS, would not fall foul of Section 269SS of the Act. This particularly in the absence of any payment beingmade in cash. (i) In the present facts, the period during which the journal entries were made by the…