Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.)

370 ITR 313High Court2015#9752 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.)

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

…d by the assessee was that if money is taken from partners or sister concerns, it could not be treated as loans or deposits. In support of this contention, counsel for the assessee relied on judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers and another [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Delhi). Reading of these judgments show that these cases were decided on the basis of the documents that were available before the Court. On the other hand, insofar as these cases are concerned, though it is the admitted case that amounts were received from…

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

…d by the assessee was that if money is taken from partners or sister concerns, it could not be treated as loans or deposits. In support of this contention, counsel for the assessee relied on judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers and another [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Delhi). Reading of these judgments show that these cases were decided on the basis of the documents that were available before the Court. On the other hand, insofar as these cases are concerned, though it is the admitted case that amounts were received from…

THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1371/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…d by the assessee was that if money is taken from partners or sister concerns, it could not be treated as loans or deposits. In support of this contention, counsel for the assessee relied on judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and 18 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers and another [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Delhi).Reading of these judgments show that these cases were decided on the basis of the documents that were available before the Court. On the other hand, insofar as these cases are concerned, though it is the admitted cas…

THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1370/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…d by the assessee was that if money is taken from partners or sister concerns, it could not be treated as loans or deposits. In support of this contention, counsel for the assessee relied on judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and 18 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers and another [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Delhi).Reading of these judgments show that these cases were decided on the basis of the documents that were available before the Court. On the other hand, insofar as these cases are concerned, though it is the admitted cas…

SRI HIRANMOY GON,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chiranjit Goswami, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

…ew was upheld by the Hon`ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income­tax v. Deccan Designs (India) P, Ltd. [2012] 347 ITR 0580­( Mad). 7. On the identical facts, the other Hon’ble High Courts have held as follows: (i) In CIT. vs. T. Perumal (370 ITR 313 Madras) it has been held that genuineness of the transactions to meet immediate necessity amount to reasonable cause in terms of Sec. 273B of the Income Tax Act and therefore Penalty could not be levied U/s 271D of the Income Tax Act. 4 Sri Hiranmoy Gon (ii) In C.I.T. vs Natvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh (303 ITR 5 Gujrat) it has also been held tha…

M/S M.D.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GURGAON vs. ADDL.CIT (EXEMPTION), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5000/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T.R. Talwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)

…on is not in the nature of loan or deposit as repayment of cash on monthly installments is not prohibited by law. In support, he relied upon the following judgments. 1. CIT vs. Muthoot Fiancers, (2015) 371 ITR 408 (Delhi0 2. CIT vs. T Perumal (Indl.) (2015) 370 ITR 313 (Mad.) 3. CIT vs. Panchsheel Overseas Association (2017) 395 ITR 380 (Guj.) 5 I.T.A. No.5000/DEL/2016 7. On the other hand, learned Department Representative submitted that, penalty u/s.271D and 271E has no relevance to assessment proceedings as both are independent and in support her contention, she strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon'bl…

I.T.O. WARD - 38(2), MIDNAPORE, PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. SHRI ARUP KUMAR HAZRA , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2488/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nicolas Murmu, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…on which loan was taken from Shri Nikhil Laha and that this amount was used for payment for purchase which was immediate necessity for the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs.T.Perumal (2015) 370 ITR 313 (Mad) to the proposition that when there are exigencies, which force the borrower to accept cash as the borrowers, under the exceptional circumstances has reasonable cause and that penalty cannot be levied in accordance with the provision of section 273B of the Act. I also find that the ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasth…

ITO, WARD-3(1),ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S RANJIT JEWELLERS, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2425/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2016AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…d by the assessee was that if money is taken from partners or sister concerns, it could not be treated as loans or deposits. In support of this contention, counsel for the assessee relied on judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muthoot Financiers and another [2015] 371 ITR 408 (Delhi). Reading of these judgments show that these cases were decided on the basis of the documents that were available before the Court. On the other hand, insofar as these cases are concerned, though it is the admitted case that amounts were received from…

MAMAN SINGH,DELHI vs. JCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1255/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Maman Singh, Vs. Jcit, Range-Ii, C/O- Sh. Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Atvps9067P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Yatendra Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Gurgaon, Wherein He Confirmed The Penalty Levied Under Section 271E Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Joint/ Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax For Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269T Of The Act During Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271E Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 18,00,000/- Wrongly Imposed For Alleged Violation Of Section 269T Of The Act. Ii. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Yatendra Singh, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 273BSection 274

…We have heard the rival submissions and perused material available on record. We find that in view of number of judgments including judgements in the cases of CIT Vs Trimph International Finance Ltd (2012) 345 ITR 270( Bom) and CIT Vs T. Perumal (INDL) (2015) 370 ITR 313(Mad), it is settled law that the penalty levied under Section 271D/271E for violation of the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T is not justified, where the assessee is able to successfully demonstrate the reasonable cause for non-compliance of the 6 conditions of section 269SS/269T of the Act. In the case under hand, we have observed that the a…

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

…j.) – Rajasthan High Court. (l) DCIT vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav [2012] 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…

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

…j.) – Rajasthan High Court. (l) DCIT vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav [2012] 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Perumal (Indul.) (370 ITR 313) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax