Mohan Kaikare v. Dy. CIT

52 ITD 236Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1995#21028 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

construction pe penalty under section 271d section 269t section 269s domestic company section 273 section 269ss section 273b section 271d section 48 section 269 child

Judgments citing Mohan Kaikare 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

…ed that impugned amounts were neither loans nor deposits, all other allegations and arguments become irrelevant to the context since the provisions of s. 269SS are not attracted in the facts of the present case." 23. In the case of Mohan Kaikare vs. Dy. CIT (52 ITD 236) the facts were that on 10th Jan., 1989, the assessee had obtained a sum of Rs. 40,000 and on 11th Jan., 1989, another sum of Rs. 30,000 both amounts in cash; from his father to purchase a matador from Bajaj Auto Ltd. Poona. In the assessment proceedings, the transaction was accepted as genuine, but penalty proceedings under s. 271D of the Act wer…

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

…decided that impugned amounts were neither loans nor deposits, all other allegations and arguments become irrelevant to the context since the provisions of s. 269SS are not attracted in the facts of the present case." In the case of Mohan Kaikare vs. Dy. CIT (52 ITD 236) 23. the facts were that on 10th Jan., 1989, the assessee had obtained a sum of Rs. 40,000 and on 11th Jan., 1989, another sum of Rs. 30,000 both amounts in cash; from his father to purchase a matador from Bajaj Auto Ltd. Poona. In the assessment proceedings, the transaction was accepted as genuine, but penalty proceedings under s. 271D of the Act…

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

…decided that impugned amounts were neither loans nor deposits, all other allegations and arguments become irrelevant to the context since the provisions of s. 269SS are not attracted in the facts of the present case." In the case of Mohan Kaikare vs. Dy. CIT (52 ITD 236) the facts 23. were that on 10th Jan., 1989, the assessee had obtained a sum of Rs. 40,000 and on 11th Jan., 1989, another sum of Rs. 30,000 both amounts in cash; from his father to purchase a matador from Bajaj Auto Ltd. Poona. In the assessment proceedings, the transaction was accepted as genuine, but penalty proceedings under s. 271D of the Act…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Mr. Sanjay Shenoy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1220/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Amrit Raj Singh, JCIT, (DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri. V Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 273D

…sed by the AO. The assessee had placed reliance on the decisions of the ITAT Amritsar bench and ITAT Indore Bench in the case of ITO Vs. Tarlochan Singh in ITA No.415/ASR/1996 dated 16/12/2002 and ITAT Indore Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Mohan Karkare (1995) 52 ITD 236 wherein, it was held that transactions which were personal in nature do not attract provisions of secs.269SS and 269T of the Act. 8. The CIT(A) after considering the above submissions agreed with the submissions and cancelled penalties imposed on the assessee u/s 271D and 271E of the Act observing as follows: “The appellant is nephew of Dr. P.Daya…