Gujarat in CIT v. Maa Khoodiyar Constructions

365 ITR 474High Court#20620 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Gujarat in CIT v. Maa Khoodiyar Constructions

The ITO, Ward -1, Surat vs. Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik Sahakari Dhiran Mandli Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 612/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.612/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik, Ward-1, Bardoli. Sahakari Dhiran Mandli Ltd., Madhi, Tal.Bardoli, Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aadas 5644 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shaunak Zaveri– Ca & Shri Yogesh Gamit - Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 274

…The transaction can also be attributed to various exigencies of business carried on by the assessee and: thus constitutes a 'reasonable cause as contemplated by s. 2738., Reliance Is placed on: following; case low: 1) CIT V/s Maa Khodiyar Constructions {2014J 365 ITR 474 (Guj). Page 8 of 10 DCIT, Ward-1, Surat Vs. Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik/ITA No.612/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 2) CIT V/s Sahara India Mutual Benefit Company Limited (2013) 257 CTR (Del) 225. 8.4 More so, the assessee has been carrying on the business activities of taking deposits and giving credits and it is having bona fide belief that pr…

Gourang Chandra Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-3, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Biswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 156Section 269SSection 271DSection 275

…action is made to prevent tax evasion. The Ld. A.O. is agreed upon the same & mentioned in the Asst. Order. The assessee has relied and submitted the Judgement of Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. State of Orissa(83 ITR 26(SC), CIT Vs Maa Khodiar Construction (2014 365 ITR 474(Guj), Omec Engineers vs. Cit (Jharkhand High Court) (2007) and jurisdictional ITAT decision i.e. the decision of the ITAT, Cuttack Bench in case of Dipak Kumar Sahu Vs. JCIT (ITA NO.115/CTK/2016) and PATO Builders Pvt. Limited Vs. ACIT of Ranchi ITAT, Ranchi (ITA No. 33/Ran/2014). However Ld. CIT(A) P a g e 1 | 16 Assessment Y ear : 2013- 2014…

M/S. Loyal Bankers, Pathanamthitta vs. The Adcit, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 137/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 269SSection 271D

…n CIT vs. Sahara India Financial Corp. Ltd. (257 CTR 215 (Delhi)), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that existence of inadequate banking facilities and section 271D. Similarly the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT vs. Maa Khoodiyar Constructions (365 ITR 474), has held that no penalty can be levied for cash loans exceeding Rs.20,000/- from agriculturists living in remote areas when transactions were not doubted. 3.7 In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause as mentioned in section 273B of the I.T. Act, for acce…

M/S. Loyal Bankers, Pathanamthitta vs. The Adcit, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 136/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 269SSection 271D