ITO vs. Shakti Foundation., (2016) 48 CCH 0065 (Jaipur) 10. 11. Sunflower Builders (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

61 ITD 227Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1997#9321 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 260-A Section 269SS Section 269T Section 271 Section 271A Section 271AA Section 271B

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271d section 269ss section 271d section 269 levy of penalty section 26 reasonable cause section 271 section 27 transfer person company

Judgments citing ITO vs. Shakti Foundation., (2016) 48 CCH 0065 (Jaipur) 10. 11. Sunflower Builders (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

NILONS ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. WARD 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1600/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

…he case of V.N. Parekh Ltd. and Ketan Parekh as indicated in the order of this Court in Triumph International Finance (supra). Our attention was also invited to numerous reported decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Sunflower Builders v. Dy. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 227 (Pune), Asstt. CIT v. Ruchika Chemicals & Investment (P.) Ltd. [2004] 88 TTJ 85 (Delhi) and Asstt. CIT v. Lala Murari Lal & Sons [2004] 2 SOT 543 (Luck) wherein it has been held journal entries in the book of accounts indicating deposit/loans will not fall foul of Section 269SS of the Act. Besides, the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Noida Toll…

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

…vs.CIT 1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 199(1998) 64 ITD 300 (Ahd), MuthootM. George Bankers vsAsstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Coth) 434(1993) 46 ITD 10 (Coch), Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. AddlCIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd) and Sun Flower Builders (P) Ltd. vs. DyCIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (Pune) relied on (Paras 5 & 6) The issue decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal is that Journal entry passed by the Karta of assessee HUF debiting the HUF account of expenditure incurred by him for giving gifts relatives on behalf of HUF did not amount to loan or deposit within the meaning of s. 269SS and accordingly, penalty under section 271D was not l…

RAM SINGH,KARNAL vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1457/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Ram Singh, Vs. Addl. CIT, H. No. 1550, Sector-7, Range Karnal Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana PAN :AZQPS7536M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Indu Sen, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 11.08.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned Commissio…

RAMAN CHAUDHARY,KARNAL vs. ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1456/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Raman Chaudhary, Vs. ACIT, H. No. 1550, Sector-7, Special Range, Urban Estate, Karnal, Karnal Haryana PAN :AFOPC1631G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Indu Sen, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 11.08.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned…

ITO - 1(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S FILM WAVES COMBINES P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri P.P. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

…the case of V.N. Parekh Ltd. and Ketan Parekh as indicated in the order of this Court in Triumph International Finance (supra). Our attention was also invited to numerous reported decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Sunflower Builders v. Dy. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 227 (Pune), Asstt. CIT v. Ruchika Chemicals & Investment (P.) Ltd. [2004] 88 TTJ 85 (Delhi) and Asstt. CIT v. Lala Murari Lal & Sons [2004] 2 SOT 543 ( Luck) wherein it has been held journal entries in the book of accounts indicating deposit/loans will not fall foul of Section 269SS of the Act. Besides, the Delhi High Court in CIT vy. Noida Toll Bridg…

SHRI MOHANLAL SOBHAGMAL,BIJAYNAGAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AJMER

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

…8) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 199: (1998) 64 ITD 300 (Ahd), Muthoot M. George Bankers vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Coch) 434: (1993) 46 ITD 10 (Coch), Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd) and Sun Flower Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (Pune) relied on." 8. It is pertinent to note that no addition u/s 69 or other provision, was made in the assessment order 29.11.2016 though framed u/s 143(3) meaning thereby the subjected transactions were treated as genuine transaction, which are not intended to be covered. There is absolutely no doubt raised, in any of the orders by lower auth…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

ITA 3081/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3081 & 3082/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, CIRCLE 33(1), Vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH ROOM NO. 1505, 15TH FLOOR, WADHAWAN, DR. SHYAMA PRASAD 78, PACHIMI MARG, MUKHERJEE MARG, VASANT VIHAR, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI – 110 057 NEW DELHI (PAN: AAAPW4845M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR Assessee by Sh. Manoj Patwari, Ms. Shilpa Mittal, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM These 02 appeals are filed by the Revenue against the respective…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WASHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

ITA 3082/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NARSI IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD.,, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2866/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv

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

…re is any merit in holding that the amount has been repaid in contravention of section 269T. Therefore I’m not inclined to sustain the action of the Addl. CIT in this regard. The decision of ITAT Pune bench in the case of Sunflower Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 61 ITD 227 is directly on the point. The Hon’ble bench of ITAT has referred to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co Ltd (56 ITR 52) and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT 3 vs. Ritu Rayon Pvt. Ltd. (TAXAP/2524/2009 4/4) and concluded that in case of transfer of loan through book entr…

VINOD KUMAR MITTAL,BEAWAR vs. ITO, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 783/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…60 TTJ (Ahd) 199 : (1998) 64 ITD 300 (Ahd), Muthoot M. George Bankers vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Coch) 434 : (1993) 46 ITD 10 (Coch), Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd) and Sun Flower Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (Pune) relied on.” Karnataka Ginning & Pressing Factory v/s JCIT (2001) 72 TTJ 0307 (Mum Bench) - Temporary advance is not loan deposit. Thus, the movement of the funds between the two group concerns was need based hence, such transactions were in the form of current accommodation adjustment entries and not being in the nature of loan & advance…

BHOPAL SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. JT. CIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri F. Rehman Khan (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Mallik (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…60 TTJ (Ahd) 199 : (1998) 64 ITD 300 (Ahd), Muthoot M. George Bankers \/s. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Coch) 434 : (1993) 46 ITD 10 (Coch), Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd) and Sun Flower Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (Pune) relied on." Subjected amount was found Genuine: It is pertinent to note that no 4. addition u/s 68 or other provision, was made in the assessment order 18.09.2014 though framed u/s 143(3)/148 meaning thereby the subjected transactions were treated as genuine transaction, which are not intended to be covered. There is absolutely no doubt rai…

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

…ns had nothing to do with evasion of tax or concealment of income and the transactions did not fall within the mischief sought to be remedied by section 269SS of the Act. The Pune bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sun Flower Builders (P) Ltd vs DCIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (Pune Trib) held that acknowledgement of debt by the assessee company by passing a journal entry in its books of accounts would not come within the ambit of the words ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’ as mentioned in section 269SS of the Act. c) Decision of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Orange Securities Pvt Ltd vs DCIT in ITA NO. 1913…