Farrukhabad Investment (1) Ltd. v. JCIT

85 ITD 230Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#16172 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271dsection 269ssection 273section 269sssection 273bsection 271dsection 269section 26reasonable causesection 271section 27person

Judgments citing Farrukhabad Investment (1) Ltd. v. JCIT

Incometax Officer, Kozhikode vs. The Vengeri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kozhikode

Appeals are hereby partly allowed

ITA 730/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

…ny reason the taxpayer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bonafide reasons, the authority rested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power. 22. In Farrukhabad Investment (1) Ltd. vs. JCIT (2003) 85 ITD 230 (Delhi), the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal's observation applies squarely to the facts of the assessee's case. In para 46 of its order, the Tribunal observed that keeping in view the intent of the legislature behind enacting the above sections, we hold that the loans/deposits brought in by the assessee was not to explain its unaccounted cash and the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kalpetta vs. Mullankolly Service Co Operative Bank Ltd, Mullankolly

Appeals are hereby partly allowed

ITA 729/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Adithya Unnikrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

…ny reason the taxpayer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bonafide reasons, the authority rested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power. 22. In Farrukhabad Investment (1) Ltd. vs. JCIT (2003) 85 ITD 230 (Delhi), the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal's observation applies squarely to the facts of the assessee's case. In para 46 of its order, the Tribunal observed that keeping in view the intent of the legislature behind enacting the above sections, we hold that the loans/deposits brought in by the assessee was not to explain its unaccounted cash and the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Klapetta, Kalpetta vs. Mullankolly Service Co Operative Bank Ltd, Mullankolly

Appeals are hereby partly allowed

ITA 728/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Adithya Unnikrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

…ny reason the taxpayer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bonafide reasons, the authority rested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power. 22. In Farrukhabad Investment (1) Ltd. vs. JCIT (2003) 85 ITD 230 (Delhi), the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal's observation applies squarely to the facts of the assessee's case. In para 46 of its order, the Tribunal observed that keeping in view the intent of the legislature behind enacting the above sections, we hold that the loans/deposits brought in by the assessee was not to explain its unaccounted cash and the…

Incometax Officer, Kozhikode vs. The Vengeri Service Cooperative Bank Ltd, Kozhikode

Appeals are hereby partly allowed

ITA 727/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

…ny reason the taxpayer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bonafide reasons, the authority rested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power. 22. In Farrukhabad Investment (1) Ltd. vs. JCIT (2003) 85 ITD 230 (Delhi), the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal's observation applies squarely to the facts of the assessee's case. In para 46 of its order, the Tribunal observed that keeping in view the intent of the legislature behind enacting the above sections, we hold that the loans/deposits brought in by the assessee was not to explain its unaccounted cash and the…

Assanar & Sons, Kottayam vs. Jtcit, Kottayam

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

ITA 191/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Cherian, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 269TSection 271E

…405. 13) CIT vs. Shri Waheguru Singh 2008 (12) TMI 33 (P&H). 14) CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H). Assanar & Sons, Kottayam Page 4 of 13 15) CIT vs. Ratna Agencies (2006) 284 ITR 609 (Mad.). 16) Farrukhabad Investment (I) Ltd. vs JCIT (2003) 85 ITD 230 (Del.). 17) ITO vs. VS. Hostel, 2012 (11) TMI 463 (Guj.) 18) CIT vs. Mahabal Shetty, 2011 (9) TMI 189 (Bom.). 14. The Ld. DR drew our attention to the following details of repayments: 1. 03-05-2007 Amount received Rs.7920000 Transferred to IOB Short Term Deposit on 04-05-2007. 2. 04-05-2007 Amount received Rs.3600000 Transferred to Meenachil E.…

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

…sequently, this is not a fit case where penalty under s. 271D may be imposed. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the decision of Tribunal, Agra Bench in the case of Farrukhabad Investment (I) Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT (2003) 80 TTJ (Del) 82 : (2003) 85 ITD 230 (Del), specially the observations at pp. 249 to 253 in para 38 to 48 and at p. 256 para 60 of the order. The next argument, advanced by the ld. counsel for the assessee 9. was that the amount in question received by the trust being from trustee itself, the transaction was neither of loan nor deposits and in any case, was not in contravention of s…

Farrukhabad Investment (1) Ltd. v. JCIT (85 ITD 230) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax