Enterprises v. Dy. CIT

64 ITD 300Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1998#18147 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Judgments citing Enterprises v. Dy. CIT

Modesty Garments, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2574/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Modesty Garments Vs Jcit B-304, New Friends Colony Range-28(1) New Delhi-110025. New Delhi Pan-Aaafm1598F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca Shri Nitin Sharma, Ca & Shri Neeraj Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.01.2025

Section 250Section 269T

…ven facts and circumstances of the case, penalty shall not be levied as an automatic incidence. Therefore, the levy of penalty under s. 271E is not mandatory but directory in nature. 6.1. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in Shrepak Enterprises vs DCIT (1998) 64 ITD 300 (AHD) order dated 20.05.1997 has observed that payment by partner to firm is a payment to self is not a loan or deposit contemplated under s. 269SS of the Act and consequently, penalty under s. 271D is not attracted. By the same token, repayment of the outstanding by the partnership firm to the partner would not attract s.269T of the Act and conse…

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

…iving gifts to relatives on behalf of the assessee (HUF)does not amount to loan or deposit within the meaning269SS and as such, no penalty is leviable under 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…

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

…latives on behalf of the assessee (HUF) does not amount to loan or deposit within the meaning of s. 269SS and as such, no penalty is leviable under s. 271D. Accordingly, 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…

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)

…atives on behalf of the assessee (HUF) does not amount to loan or deposit within the meaning of s. 269SS and as such, no penalty is leviable under s. 271D. Accordingly, 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…

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

…atives on behalf of the assessee (HUF) does not amount to loan or deposit within the meaning of s. 269SS and as such, no penalty is leviable under s. 271D. Accordingly, the penalty is cancelled.—Shrepak Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 199 : (1998) 64 ITD 300 (Ahd), Muthoot M. George Bankers \/s. 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." Subjected amount was found Genuine: It is pertinent to note that no 4. addition u/s 68 or other…