Income-Tax Officer v. Bisheshwar Lal

280 ITR 14Reported decision#17501 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 143(l)(a)section 245hsection 261penalty under section 271esection 269tsection 275section 269ssection 271erevision under section 263section 273section 129section 245

Judgments citing Income-Tax Officer v. Bisheshwar Lal

Parvathi Garlapati, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 598/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…ined without satisfaction being recorded in the assessment order. Learned AR relied upon the decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521, Mohd. Atiq vs. ITO 46 ITR 452, ITO vs. Bisheshwar Lal 76 ITR 653, CIT vs. Padampat Singhania (HUF) 280 ITR 14, Vijayaben G. Zalavadia vs. JCIT in ITA Nos.458 to 463/Ahd/2020 and Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari vs. JCIT in W.P.No.44285 of 2022, dated 26/12/2022. 5. Per contra, learned DR argued that once the violation of the provisions under section 269SS of the Act is established, penalty under section 271D of the Act is automatic and, therefore, no question…

Sultana Begum, Hyderabad vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…ined without satisfaction being recorded in the assessment order. Learned AR relied upon the decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521, Mohd. Atiq vs. ITO 46 ITR 452, ITO vs. Bisheshwar Lal 76 ITR 653, CIT vs. Padampat Singhania (HUF) 280 ITR 14, Vijayaben G. Zalavadia vs. JCIT in ITA Nos.458 to 463/Ahd/2020 and Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari vs. JCIT in W.P.No.44285 of 2022, dated 26/12/2022. 5. Per contra, learned DR argued that once the violation of the provisions under section 269SS of the Act is established, penalty under Page 2 of 9 section 271D of the Act is automatic and, therefore,…

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 366/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…vs. Jain Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521, the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Mohd. Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, 46 ITR 452 and in case of Income-Tax Officer vs Bisheshwar Lal 76 ITR 653 as well as in case of CIT vs. Padampat Singhaning (HUF) 280 ITR 14. He has also relied upon the order of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal dated 11.05.2022 in case of Vijayaben G. Zalavadia vs. JCIT in ITANos.458 to 463/Ahd/2020. 6. Ld. AR has further submitted that the assesse was having a reasonable cause for taking the loan in cash and repayment of the same in cash. As the assesse has taken this loan for pur…

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 365/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…vs. Jain Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521, the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Mohd. Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, 46 ITR 452 and in case of Income-Tax Officer vs Bisheshwar Lal 76 ITR 653 as well as in case of CIT vs. Padampat Singhaning (HUF) 280 ITR 14. He has also relied upon the order of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal dated 11.05.2022 in case of Vijayaben G. Zalavadia vs. JCIT in ITANos.458 to 463/Ahd/2020. 6. Ld. AR has further submitted that the assesse was having a reasonable cause for taking the loan in cash and repayment of the same in cash. As the assesse has taken this loan for pur…

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 364/IND/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…vs. Jain Laxmi Rice Mills 379 ITR 521, the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Mohd. Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, 46 ITR 452 and in case of Income-Tax Officer vs Bisheshwar Lal 76 ITR 653 as well as in case of CIT vs. Padampat Singhaning (HUF) 280 ITR 14. He has also relied upon the order of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal dated 11.05.2022 in case of Vijayaben G. Zalavadia vs. JCIT in ITANos.458 to 463/Ahd/2020. 6. Ld. AR has further submitted that the assesse was having a reasonable cause for taking the loan in cash and repayment of the same in cash. As the assesse has taken this loan for pur…

Income-Tax Officer v. Bisheshwar Lal (280 ITR 14) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax