ITO v. Sunil M. Kasliwal

94 ITD 281Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#16246 most cited

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

Sections most often in play

Section 269SS Section 269T Section 271D Section 271E

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271d section 269s section 269ss section 271d section 273 section 269 section 273b genuineness of the transaction levy of penalty section 26 section 271 reasonable cause

Judgments citing ITO v. Sunil M. Kasliwal

Shri Prakash Jiwandas Wanjari, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 232/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273ASection 80C

…allowed the assessee's appeal and while doing so, the Tribunal followed the decisions (i) of the Tribunal in the case of M.Raju Vs. ACIT [ITA.No.899/Mds/2006]; (ii) of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Sunil M. Kasliwal [reported in (2005) 94 ITD 281]; and (iii) of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. http://www.judis.nic.in Lakshmi Trust Co. [reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99]. and held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the levy of penalty was not warranted. The Tribunal further held that the transaction between the father in law and the daughter in law was a genuine transaction and…

Shri Babu Munirathinam, Chennai vs. The JCIT, Ncr-17, Chennai

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 1061/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1061/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Babu Munirathinam, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No. 45/13, Sriuvallur Road, Perambur, Income Tax, Chennai 600 011. Non Corporate Range 17, Chennai. [Pan:Anypm7361H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground Nos. 1 To 4 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Levied By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271D

…allowed the assessee's appeal and while doing so, the Tribunal followed the decisions (i) of the Tribunal in the case of M.Raju Vs. ACIT [ITA.No.899/Mds/2006]; (ii) of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Sunil M. Kasliwal [reported in (2005) 94 ITD 281]; and (iii) of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. http://www.judis.nic.in Lakshmi Trust Co. [reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99], and held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the levy of penalty was not warranted. The Tribunal further held that the transaction between the father in law and the daughter in law was a genuine transaction and…

Kailash Chand Goyal, Sawai Madhopur vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Sawai Madhopur

In the result, the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/JPR/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Birla, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…2.5 Regarding the appellant’s claim of genuineness of the transaction is not sufficient but reasonable it to be stated for acceptation of loans in cash. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Pune Tribunal in the case of ITO vs Sunil M Kasliwal (2005) 94 ITD 281 TTJ 01/(2004) 2 SOT 596 (™)(Pune)(Trib) had adjudicated on identical footing. ……. 12.6 In view of above, the appellant has violated the provisions of Section269T and hence he liable for imposing penalty u/s 271E. Thus penalty levied u/s 271E is upheld. Thus Ground No. 7(i) to (vii) are dismissed. 13… 14. In result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.2 D…

Mani Sundaram, Devakottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 899/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.899/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mani Sundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 52, Thiyagigal Road, Ward-1, Karaikudi. Devakottai, Tamil Nadu 630 302. [Pan:Cwops9124D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 21.06.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M/S. Surabi Pvc Pipes & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 20.01.2018 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹.3,03,720/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…allowed the assessee's appeal and while doing so, the Tribunal followed the decisions (i) of the Tribunal in the case of M.Raju Vs. ACIT [ITA.No.899/Mds/2006]; (ii) of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Sunil M. Kasliwal [reported in (2005) 94 ITD 281]; and (iii) of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. http://www.judis.nic.in Lakshmi Trust Co. [reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99], and held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the levy of penalty was not warranted. The Tribunal further held that the transaction between the father in law and the daughter in law was a genuine transaction and…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/s Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh. PAN/GIR No. : AEPPJ4134H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : None Respondentby : Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 12.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Jabalpur passed u/s 271D and 250…

M/S H. K. Infraventure Pvt. Ltd, Varansi vs. Joint. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Varansi

ITA 46/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Viswakarma,CITD.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…reported in (2005) 274 ITR 53(P&H HC). c) Appellate order passed by Delhi-tribunal in the case of Ajay Goel v. ACIT, reported in (2010) 126 ITD 89(Del-trib.) d) Appellate order passed by Pune-tribunal in the case of ITO v. Sunil M Kasliwal, reported in (2005) 94 ITD 281(Pune-trib.(TM)) e) Appellate order passed by Delhi-tribunal in the case of Mehak Singh v.ITO, reported in (2010) 127 ITD 1(Del-trib.) f) Judgment and Order passed by Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works Private Limited v. CIT, reported in (2005) 275 ITR 399(Jharkhand- HC). The ld. CIT DR distinguished the decisio…