Industrial Enterprises v. Dy. CIT

73 ITD 252Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#16084 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

construction pepenalty under section 271dsection 269tsection 269sdomestic companysection 273section 269sssection 273bsection 271dsection 48section 269child

Judgments citing Industrial Enterprises v. Dy. CIT

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

…together with the aggregate amount remaining unpaid on the date on which such loan or deposit is proposed to be taken, is Rs. 10,000 or more." 29. The Tribunal further referred to the case of Industrial Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (2000) 68 TTJ (Hyd) 373 : (2000) 73 ITD 252 (Hyd), wherein it was held in para 17 of its order, as follows :- 'Provisions of S.269SS were brought in the statute book to counter the evasion of tax in certain cases, as clearly stated in the heading of Chapter XX-B of the IT Act, 1961 which reads "requirement as to mode of acceptance, payment or repayment in certain cases to counteract evasion…

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 Karnataka Agro Chemicals Vs. The Additional Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, No.43C, Hoskote Industrial Area, Range 4(1), Hoskote, Bengaluru – 562 114. Bengaluru. PAN: AAACK 5533F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri SreeHariKutsa, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal…

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

…together with the aggregate amount remaining unpaid on the date on which such loan or deposit is proposed to be taken, is Rs. 10,000 or more." The Tribunal further referred to the case of Industrial 29. Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (2000) 68 TTJ (Hyd) 373 : (2000) 73 ITD 252 (Hyd), wherein it was held in para 17 of its order, as follows :- 'Provisions of S.269SS were brought in the statute book to counter the evasion of tax in certain cases, as clearly stated in the heading of Chapter XX-B of the IT Act, 1961 which reads "requirement as to mode of acceptance, payment or repayment in certain cases to counteract evasion…

Auto Fuel Centre, Durgapur vs. J.C.I.T., Circle-1, Durgapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Auto Fuel Centre Vs. Jcit, Circle-1, Dgp C/O. Sn Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seben Brothers” Lodge, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S Chinsurah, Dist- Hooghly. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfa8826F (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…by account- payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reasons, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power. We note that Coordinate Bench of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Industrial Enterprises -VS- D.C.I.T. [2000] 73 ITD 252 (HYD-Trib) held that where both the parties have disclosed the transactions to the same assessing authority and the genuineness of the transactions are not in dispute, the provisions of section 269T of the Act are not applicable. Findings of the Tribunal is given below: “25. In the instant case what the assessee has done was the repayment of loan…

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)

…lty – Loans in cash exceeding specified limit – Finding that there was no intent to violate law – Cancellation of penalty – Valid – Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 271D, 271E. (iv) Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in case of Industrial Enterprises v. Dy. CIT (2000) 73 ITD 252 (Hyd) in para 17.2 of its order held as under: "Provisions of section 269SS were brought in the statute book to counter the evasion of tax in certain cases, as clearly stated in the heading of Chapter XX -B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads requirement as to mode of acceptance, payment or repayment in certain cases to counteract evasion of…

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 with the aggregate amount remaining unpaid on the date on which such loan or deposit proposed to be taken, is Rs. 10,000 or more" 8. Keeping the above circular in view, the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in case of Industrial Enterprises v. Dy. CIT (2000) 73 ITD 252 (Hyd) in para 17.2 of its order held as under: "Provisions of section 269SS were brought in the statute book to counter the evasion of tax in certain cases, as clearly stated in the heading of Chapter XX -B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads requirement as to mode of acceptance, payment or repayment in certain cases to counteract evasion of…

Industrial Enterprises v. Dy. CIT (73 ITD 252) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax