Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

80 ITD 484Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#5838 most cited

What is Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT authority for?

Transactions carried out to meet business exigencies can be considered reasonable cause for not adhering to provisions that require banking channels for certain cash transactions, potentially negating penalties under sections 271D and 271E.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Dillu Cine Enterprises · penalty section 271D · penalty section 271E · reasonable cause · business exigencies · cash transactions · section 269SS · section 269T

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 271E

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271dsection 269ssection 269sssection 271dsection 269levy of penaltygenuineness of the transactionsection 271section 26reasonable causesection 27section 68

Judgments citing Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…rted to this Section. The Honble ITAT followed in Kamal Kumar Jain in ITA No. 808/Jp/2008 dt. 31.10.2008 also Kindly refer Motilal Padampat Singhania 118 ITR 326(SC) followed in Veer Sales Corporation 50 TTJ 130 at 153, Dillu Cine Enterprises Ltd. v/s Ad. CIT 80 ITD 484 (Hyd.) also Chandra Cement Ltd. Vs. DCIT 23 TW 160 (JP) and Hissariya Brothers v/s JCIT 73 TTJ 1 (JD). 4.1 Covered matter: The Honble Raj. High Court in the case of CIT V/s Raj Kumar Sharma 294 ITR 131 (Raj.) It has been held that reasonable cause for the purpose of penalty u/s 271D- Tribunal having accepted that bonafide belief of the assessee th…

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

…Kumar Goyel (21 DTR 43) in which it was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which relates to the transactions between the sister concerns. There is another case contained in page no. 21 of CIT (A) order is Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (80 ITD 484), where it speaks about the genuine transaction shall not covered under section 271E He has also quoted in page no. 27, last para of his order the cases which are furnished by Respondent before him, In page no.12 of his order he discussed the case is in the case of CIT vs Eqbal Inn and Hotels Ltd. (High Court of Punjab & Haryana) In the instant…

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

…Kumar Goyel (21 DTR 43) in which it was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which relates to the transactions between the sister concerns. There is another case contained in page no. 21 of CIT (A) order is Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (80 ITD 484), where it speaks about the genuine transaction shall not covered under section 271E He has also quoted in page no. 27, last para of his order the cases which are furnished by Respondent before him, In page no.12 of his order he discussed the case is in the case of CIT vs Eqbal Inn and Hotels Ltd. (High Court of Punjab & Haryana) In the instant…

BHALCHANDRA P. DALVI,GHAHTKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 27 (1) (2), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2492/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhalchandra P. Dalvi, Vs. Ito-Ward 27(1)(2), 1, Hemalaya Society, It-Office, Vashi Milind Nagar, Near Railway Station Sungrace English Building, School,Ghatkopar(W), Navimumbai-400705. Mumbai-400084. Pan/Gir No. : Aampd3092P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & Shri B.R.Vyas.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Ashokkumarambastha,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec271D & U/Sec250 Of The Act. 1. The Learned Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax 27(1) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271D Amounting To Rupees 24,50,000/- Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand As Well As Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Confirming The Same. Bhalachandra P. Dalvi.Mumbai. 2.1 The Appellant Has Received Rupees 18,50,000/- Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Cash Against Sale Of Flat & Rs.6,00,000/- Amount Raised From Lenders Which Amount Was Less Than Rupees Twenty Thousand Out Of Rupees Six Lakhs, Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Is Already Taxed As Income & Balance Loans Are Accepted As Genuine & Each Loans Less Than Rs.20,000/- Considering Above Facts & Circumstances No Penalty U/S 271D Can Be Levied & Same Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri.AshokKumarAmbastha,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271D

…ann 383 Delhi HC 8. CIT Vs. Kailash Chandra Deepak Kumar, [2009] 317 ITR 351 Allahabad HC 9. CIT Vs. Khartri Lal & Co. [2005] 144 Taxmann 178 (P & H HC) 10. Pankaj Investment Vs. ACIT, 46 ITR (T) 345 Mumbai. 11. Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT, [2002] 80 ITD 484 12. Karnataka Ginning & Pressing factors Vs. JCIT, [2001] 77 ITD 478 (Mumbai) 13. CIT Vs. Speedways Rubber (P) Ltd, [2010] 326 ITR 31 14. Hindusthan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26. 15. OMEC Engineeris Vs. CIT, 294 ITR 599 16. CIT Vs. Mudhav Enterprises (P) Ltd, 356 ITR 588, Guj 8. We find that the assessing officer in the asseseement or…

THAMIRA GREEN FARMS P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL.CIT CORPORATE RANGE 3 , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1845/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1845/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Thamira Green Farm P The Additional Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 1824/4, Gautham Corporate Range -3, Apartments, 1St Floor, Chennai. 18Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Aacct-7926-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

…e, the cases related by the assessee company are held as not applicable to the present situations of the case. 10. As regards exigencies claimed by the assessee, it is relevant to mention here that in the case of M/s Dilli Cine Enterprises P Ltd., Vs Add. CIT(80 ITD 484)(2002)(Hyd), wherein it was held that the transactions done to meet exigencies of business are said to be reasonable. At the first instance, it is noticed that the assessee had not made any effort to open a bank account in the said areas; Further, the assessee's claim that they have not opened bank account in those areas on the reason that they ha…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SATNA vs. SHRI JAMMU BEG,

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 196/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…s. 271D.Accordingly, the penalty is cancelled. Shrepak Enterprises vs.CIT 1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 199(1998) 64 ITD 300 (Ahd), MuthootM. George Bankers vsAsstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Coth) 434(1993) 46 ITD 10 (Coch), Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. AddlCIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd) and Sun Flower Builders (P) Ltd. vs. DyCIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (Pune) relied on (Paras 5 & 6) The issue decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal is that Journal entry passed by the Karta of assessee HUF debiting the HUF account of expenditure incurred by him for giving gifts relatives on behalf of HUF did not amount to loan or deposit within the meanin…

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…High Court in case of CIT Vs Idhayam Publications 285 ITR 281, Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT Vs Indore JICE Academy for Excellence Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 31 Plastic Pvt. Ltd. 262 ITR 163, Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs Addl.CIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd-Trib) and Guwahati High Court in case of CIT Vs Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) 263 ITR 487 and also made a submission that Sec. 269SS of the Act is not applicable for a cash transaction between the Directors and Company, as the Directors are not any other person but they are the persons managing the whole affairs of the Company and also the As…

BARODA GREASES & AUTO CARE PRODUCTS PVT.LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE1(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1184/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1184/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Baroda Greases & Autocare Addl. Cit., Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Range-1(1), 4, Samipya Flat, Vadodara. Opp. Verai Mataji Temple, Urmi-Dinesh Mill Road, Akota, Gujarat.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…n section 269SS of the Act. Accordingly, the question of levying penalty under section 271D does not arise. The assessee is support relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal in case of in case of M/s Dhilu Cine Enterprise (P) Ltd reported in [2002] 80 ITD 484 (HYD). 4.2 However the AO held the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal is not acceptable in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Samora Hotels (P.) Ltd. reported in [2012] 19 taxmann.com 285 (Delhi) where it was held that the expression ‘any other person’ does not exclude director/shareholder. Accordingly the AO levied…

BALWAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE-21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2383/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Suman Malik, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271DSection 271E

…l viz; DCIT vs. Rupen Dass, (2011) 7 ITR 55 (Kol) (Trib); CIT vs. Balaji Traders, (2008) 167 Taxman 27 (Mad); CIT vs. Laxmi Trust Co., (2008) 303 ITR 99 (Mad); DCIT vs. Vignesh Flat Housing, (2007) 105 ITD 359 (Chennai); Dillu Cine Enterprises vs. CIT, (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd); Hindustan Steel Limited vs. State of Orissa, (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) Says in corus that the breach of Sections 269SS and 269T for receipt/repayment of cash attributable to business exigencies is a I.T.A. No.2383/Del/2019 5 mere technical or venial breach. The assessee has shown existence of reasonable cause in accepting/repayment of cash to…

SHRI MOHANLAL SOBHAGMAL,BIJAYNAGAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AJMER

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

…ingly, the penalty is cancelled.—Shrepak Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 199: (1998) 64 ITD 300 (Ahd), Muthoot M. George Bankers vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Coch) 434: (1993) 46 ITD 10 (Coch), Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd) and Sun Flower Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (Pune) relied on." 8. It is pertinent to note that no addition u/s 69 or other provision, was made in the assessment order 29.11.2016 though framed u/s 143(3) meaning thereby the subjected transactions were treated as genuine transaction, which are not intended to be covered. Th…

RANJIT ROY,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE - 23, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2254/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2254/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

…intimately or not very closely connected to the assessee. Therefore, the active director of the assessee-company was clearly not covered by the expression "any other person" occurring in section 269SS [DILLU CINE ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD - VS- ADDL. C.I.T. (2002) 80 ITD 484 (HYD)]. In other words, the expression "any other person" appearing in s. 269SS of the Act means persons who are not closely connected with the assessee. We note that where transactions had taken place with closely related persons in the family. i.e. wife, minor children and H.U.F. and the genuineness of the transactions are not doubted, it was he…

SHRI NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)Section 271ESection 40A(3)

…t person does not have any intention or mensrea to purposely violate any provision of law, so as to be visited with stringent punishment of heavy penalty. (v) Similarly Hyderabad Bench in another case namely Dillu Line Enterprises (P) Ltd v. Addl. CIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd). has held penalty u/s 269D (which is akin to 269T) not leviable and observed as under: "We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that the object of the provisions being unearthing of unaccounted money, is not applicable to any transaction which is done in an open manner, which is genuine and in which no unaccoun…

VINOD KUMAR MITTAL,BEAWAR vs. ITO, AJMER

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

ITA 783/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…gly, the penalty is cancelled.—Shrepak Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 199 : (1998) 64 ITD 300 (Ahd), Muthoot M. George Bankers vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Coch) 434 : (1993) 46 ITD 10 (Coch), Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd) and Sun Flower Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (Pune) relied on.” Karnataka Ginning & Pressing Factory v/s JCIT (2001) 72 TTJ 0307 (Mum Bench) - Temporary advance is not loan deposit. Thus, the movement of the funds between the two group concerns was need based hence, such transactions were in the form of current accommodat…

M/S EASTERN TRACK UDYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1691/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1690& 1691/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S Eastern Track Udyog Vs. Jcit, Range-5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 41, N.S. Road, Kolkata – 1. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 4959 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By :Shris. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Twoappeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To A.Y 2010-11,Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Sections271E & 271Dof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year & Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. 3. The Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.1690/Kol/2016, For A.Y.2010-11, Is Taken As The Lead Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Lead Case Reads As Under: “1. For That The Ld.Cit(A) Ought To Have Quashed The Order Of Penalty U/S 271E Passed By The Ld. Ao As It Was Barred By Limitation As Per The Provision Of Sec. 275(1)(C).

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriS. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)

…ention behind the insertion of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act is to unearth the unaccounted money. Provisions of section 269SS are not applicable to any transaction which is done in an open manner, is genuine and in which no unaccounted money is involved.( 80 ITD 484 -Hyd). 7. The Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we are of the view that the transaction between sister concer…

M/S EASTERN TRACK UDYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1690/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1690& 1691/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S Eastern Track Udyog Vs. Jcit, Range-5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 41, N.S. Road, Kolkata – 1. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 4959 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By :Shris. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Twoappeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To A.Y 2010-11,Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Sections271E & 271Dof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year & Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. 3. The Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.1690/Kol/2016, For A.Y.2010-11, Is Taken As The Lead Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Lead Case Reads As Under: “1. For That The Ld.Cit(A) Ought To Have Quashed The Order Of Penalty U/S 271E Passed By The Ld. Ao As It Was Barred By Limitation As Per The Provision Of Sec. 275(1)(C).

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriS. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)

…ention behind the insertion of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act is to unearth the unaccounted money. Provisions of section 269SS are not applicable to any transaction which is done in an open manner, is genuine and in which no unaccounted money is involved.( 80 ITD 484 -Hyd). 7. The Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we are of the view that the transaction between sister concer…

BHOPAL SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. JT. CIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri F. Rehman Khan (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Mallik (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…hat the subjected amounts were received from the blood/close relatives of the assessee who cannot be termed as a loan in the strict legal sense of the term. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Dillu Cine Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (HydTrib) (DPB 13- 24) wherein it was held that in the context of section 269-SS, 'any other person, does not include closely related person'. Also kindly refer G.D. Subraya Sheregar 10 SOT 378 (Bang) laying down an identical proposition. The various benches of the Hon’ble ITAT have been consistently, taking a view that any amount received from a…

SUKANTA BARDHAN,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. J.C.I.T, Range – 2, Hooghly Sukanta Bardhan C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, Seven Brothers Lodge, P.O. Buroshibtala. P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly. Pin- 712105. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adlpb 3978 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata, In Appeal No.10/Cit(A)-6/Kol/12-13, Dated 29.01.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271D Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.03.2012. 2. The Brief Facts Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2009-10 On 27.09.2009. The Assessee’S Return Was Processed U/S.143(1), Dated 30.07.2010. Subsequently, The Sukanta Bardhan

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kalyannath, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…n view of urgent need connected with export, Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty u/s. 271D.” Sukanta Bardhan I.T.A No.200/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 ii) In the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” in the case of Dillu Cine Enterprises (P.). Ltd. vs. ACIT in [2002] 80 ITD 484 (Hyderabad) wherein it was held as under: “Whether term ‘any other person’ occurring in this section means persons who are not very intimately connected to assessee and, therefore, on facts mentioned under heading ‘Penalty – For Words and phrases – ‘any other person’ as occurring in section 269SS of the Income-Tax Act, 1961” Therefore ld Counsel s…

ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. S.ARUN KUMAR, RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 95/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vidya, CA
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, ‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं"ीधु"वु"आर.एलरे"डी,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2009-2010. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Shri. S. Arun Kumar, Ward 1, 243, Madasamy Koil Street, Virudhunagar, Rajapalayam 626 117. [PAN AMEPA 5855B] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCIT. ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. S. Vidya, CA. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/D…

M/S S.R.ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION CO (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - MALDA., MALDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmatsinghka,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271D

…r concern does not tantamount to loan or deposit and as such, the transactions do not attract section 269SS of the Act. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal has also considered the similar isseue in the case of Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd vs Addl CIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd) wherein the director of a private limited company maintained current account with the company where he deposited and withdrew funds as per exigencies of the company. It was held that such transactions had nothing to do with evasion of tax or concealment of income and the transactions did not fall within the mischief sought to be remedied by…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAMORA HOTELS P.LTD.

The appeal is allowed

ITA - 313 / 2006HC Delhi23 Feb 2012
For Appellant: Mr Kiran BabuFor Respondent: Mr Anoop Sharma
Section 269SSection 271D

…ribunal also held that the bona fide belief of the assessee company was also based on the interpretation of the words “any other person” appearing in section 269SS. The Tribunal noted that the Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd v. ACIT: 80 ITD 484 had taken the view that the words “any other person” did not include a director of the very company which accepted the loan or deposit. Though the Tribunal also noted that a contrary view had been taken by other benches of the ITAT, it was of the view that the Hyderabad Bench decision was sufficient to lead the assessee company to believe that its…