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

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Galaxy Premises P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…e other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Vijay Mehta, defended the impugned order by claiming that the impugned issue is covered by the decision from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. 262 ITR 260 (Del.) and also from jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Ajinath Hi- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 3 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO.171 of 2015) and Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd./Lodha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO.202 of 2015 and 213 of 2015), order dated 06/02/2018. It was also pleaded that the issu…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Galaxy Premises P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…e other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Vijay Mehta, defended the impugned order by claiming that the impugned issue is covered by the decision from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. 262 ITR 260 (Del.) and also from jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Ajinath Hi- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 3 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO.171 of 2015) and Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd./Lodha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO.202 of 2015 and 213 of 2015), order dated 06/02/2018. It was also pleaded that the issu…

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…de with the group concerns under the bonafide belief that such transactions would not be hit by the provisions of section 269SS in view of various judicial decisions on this issue, including the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of Noida Toll Bridge 262 ITR 260 and (ii) such loans by way of journal entry transactions were undertaken for various commercial reasons like assigning of receivables for operational efficiency, payment on behalf of group concern for squaring up transactions, for ease in consolidation of accounts, rectification entries etc. In this regard I find that the decision dated June 12,…

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

Bench: Sh. Rajendra & Sh. Amarjit Singhdcit Central Circle 7(3) 6Th Floor, Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. ----- Appellant / Revenue Versus M/S.Simtools Private Limited 216, Shah & Nahar Industrial Road Off. Dr. E. Mosesroad, Worli, Mumbai-400018. …….Respondent/Assessee Co. No. 136/M/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6608/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year 2011-12) Simtools Private Limited 412, 17G, Vardhman Chamber, Cawasjee Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. ----- Appellant / Revenue Versus Dcit Central Circle 7(3) 6Th Floor, Room No. 654, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaecs1757M ----- Respondent / Assessee Represented By Shri Rajivharit (Dr) Vijay Mehta Ca (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 Co.No. 136/M/2018 A.Y.2011-12

…n made with the group concern under the bonafide belief that such transaction would not be hit by the provisions of section 269 SS in view of the various judicial decision on this issue, including the decision of Delhi High Court in case of NOIDA Toll Bridge (262 ITR 260) and such loan by way of journal entries transaction were undertaken for various commercial reasons like assigning or receivable for 5 CO.No. 136/M/2018 A.Y.2011-12 operational efficiency, payment on the group concern for squaring up connection, for ease of consolidation of accounts, rectification entries etc. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) a…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Jineshwar Real Estate & Farms P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Rajendra & Sh. Shripawan Singh & Dcit Cc –7 (3), Room No.655,65Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020 ----- Appellant / Revenue Represented By Miss Aarju Garodia Sr Dr

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SH. RAJENDRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DCIT CC –7 (3), Room No.655,65th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020 ----- Appellant / Revenue Represented by Miss Aarju Garodia Sr DR Versus M/s Jineshwar Real Estate & Farms P Ltd 216, Shah and Nahar Industrial Road, Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli Mumbai-400020. PAN: AABCJ8083E ----- Respondent / Assessee Represented by Shri Vijay Mehta CA (AR) Date of Hearing : 25.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2018 Order under section 254(1) of Income –tax Act PER PAWAN…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -7(3), Mumbai vs. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Lodha Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue and CO of assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

…there is a reasonable cause as explained by the assessee. The assessee explained that prior to this date there were decisions in favour of assessee in the following cases:- (i) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 260 (Delhi) rendered on 28.01.2003. (ii) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244 (Rajasthan) rendered on 21.07.2006. (iii) Order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. in ITA No. 542/Mum/2007, dated 29.01.2008. (iv) Order of Co-ordinate Bench o…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. National Standard India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…uck) 543 wherein it has been held journal entries in the book of accounts indicating deposit/ loans will not fall foul of Section 269SS of the Besides, the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax National Standard India Ltd., 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 lLFS, would not fall foul of Section 269SS of the Act. This particularly in the absence of any payment being made in cash. (i) In the present facts, the period during which the journal entries were made by the…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Aashthavinayak Estate Company P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cent Cir – 7(3) Vs. M/S. Aasthavinayak Estate Room No. 655, Company Ltd., 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 216, Shah & Nahar M.K. Road, Industrial Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dr. E. Moses Road Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aagca2863C Appellant) .. Respondent)

…e with the group concerns under the bonafide belief that such transactions would not be hit by the provisions of section 269SS in view of various judicial decisions on this issue, including -the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of Noida Toll Bridge 262 ITR 260 and (ii) such loans by way of journal entry transactions were undertaken for various commercial reasons like assigning of receivables for operational efficiency, payment on behalf of group concern for squaring up transactions, for ease in consolidation of accounts, rectification entries etc. In this regard I find that the decision dated June 12,…

ACIT 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinod Kumar Anand, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2003-04 Acit-1(2)(2), Shri Vinod Kumar Anand, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, 1, Mistry Court, 208, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Dinshaw Vacha Road, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaapa9763A

…nd the prescribed period of limitation and held that the order fell within the purview of Section 271(1)(a) and not Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. However, on merits the CIT (Appeals) referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.: 262 ITR 260 and negated the finding of the Assessing Officer that Section 269SS of the Act was violated in the given circumstances of the case. 3.5 The aforementioned order of CIT (Appeals) dated 28.01.2013 was challenged by both the Revenue as well as the assessee. Whilst the assessee was aggrieved with the conclusion of CIT (Appeals) that the penalty order…

ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Indepesca Overseas P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Ito 12(2)(4), Room No.147, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S.Indepesca Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 9, Prashant, 5B, Nargis Dutt Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 .... Respondent Pan: Aaics 1304 G

…of a journal entry in the books of account and crediting the Equity Share Capital. Ostensibly, there is no repayment of loan in cash. 9. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 260 (Delhi), which provides a good guide to explain the legal position presently before us. The case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court stood on a somewhat similar line as is before us. The Hon'ble High Court was dealing with levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act which related to violation of section 269SS of the Act. In contradistinction to…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Pooja Gandhi, Navi Mumbai

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri D. Karunakara Raoassessment Years: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Pooja Gandhi, A/303, Tax, Balaji Gardens, Sector-11, Cc-8(2), Koparkhairne, Vs. 6Th Floor, Room No.658, Navi Mumbai-400 709 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aabpa1069Q M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…the contention of the assessee that entries in books of the firm are outside the purview of provisions of section 279SS read with section 271D of the Act. Assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. 262 ITR 260 and judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. 22 taxman.com 138. 4. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the appeal may be decided accordingly. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the issue in controversy is covered b…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

…see‟s. It is the contention of the assessee, such entries are outside the scope of the provisions of section 269SS r.w.s 271D of the Act. In this regard, assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd (262 ITR 260) and the judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd (22 Taxman.com 138). On considering the said binding judgments and also considering the „reasonable cause‟ specified in the assessee‟s submissions, CIT (A) granted relief in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved with the said decisions of t…