What is Muthoot M. George Bankers v. ACIT authority for?

Funds transferred whimsically between sister concerns under common family ownership and management, with centralized accounts, where there is no evidence of a formal loan or deposit repayable on demand or for a fixed period, do not constitute 'loans or deposits' under Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act.

How many judgments cite Muthoot M. George Bankers v. ACIT?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite Muthoot M. George Bankers v. ACIT (46 ITD 10), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Muthoot M. George Bankers v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 269SS, Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 143(3), Section 269T.

Muthoot M. George Bankers v. ACIT (46 ITD 10)

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ,कटक आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/ITA No.205 to 207/CTK/2022 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / A.Y. : 2009-2010, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) वष" DCIT Central Circle-2, Vs M/s Hotel Sukhamaya Pvt. Ltd., A-1/9, A-1(A) & A-14, IRC Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751014 PAN No. :AAACH 8114 M (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ"…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ,कटक आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/ITA No.205 to 207/CTK/2022 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / A.Y. : 2009-2010, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) वष" DCIT Central Circle-2, Vs M/s Hotel Sukhamaya Pvt. Ltd., A-1/9, A-1(A) & A-14, IRC Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751014 PAN No. :AAACH 8114 M (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ"…

SH. PREM SINGH SAINI,SIKAR vs. ADDL. CIT, SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 952/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271D

…resentative. contended that the transactions between two sister concerns are not covered by the provisions of s. 269SS. For the purpose he has relied upon four judgments. In the case of Muthoot M. George Bankers vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Coch) 434: (1993) 46 ITD 10 (Coch) it was held as under (headnote): ‘In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that money was loaned or kept deposited for a fixed period or repayable on demand. Further, the sister concerns and the assessee were owned by the same family group of people with a common managing partner with centralised accounts under the same roof. Tran…

SH. PREM SINGH SAINI,SIKAR vs. ADDL. CIT, SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 951/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271D

…resentative. contended that the transactions between two sister concerns are not covered by the provisions of s. 269SS. For the purpose he has relied upon four judgments. In the case of Muthoot M. George Bankers vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Coch) 434: (1993) 46 ITD 10 (Coch) it was held as under (headnote): ‘In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that money was loaned or kept deposited for a fixed period or repayable on demand. Further, the sister concerns and the assessee were owned by the same family group of people with a common managing partner with centralised accounts under the same roof. Tran…

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

…resentative. contended that the transactions between two sister concerns are not covered by the provisions of s. 269SS. For the purpose he has relied upon four judgments. In the case of Muthoot M. George Bankers vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Coch) 434: (1993) 46 ITD 10 (Coch) it was held as under: ‘In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that money was loaned or kept deposited for a fixed period or repayable on demand. Further, the sister concerns and the assessee were owned by the same family group of people with a common managing partner with centralised accounts under the same roof. Transfer of fund…

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

…sit within the meaning269SS and as such, no penalty is leviable under s. 271D.Accordingly, the penalty is cancelled. Shrepak Enterprises 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…

DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRANSLANDS INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD, VASHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Translands Income-Tax, 15(3)(1), Infrastructure Developers Mumbai P. Ltd. Jn-3-14-5, Asshirwad Chs, Sector-09, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct 0036 B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 3Section 68

…1 DCIT vs. M/s Translands Infrastructure Developers P Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s Translands Income-tax, 15(3)(1), Infrastructure Developers Mumbai P. Ltd. JN-3-14-5, Asshirwad CHS, Sector-09, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AADCT 0036 B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Rupa Nanda Respondent by : Shri P. D. Chougule, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 06.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 05.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (A…

M/S LOK VIKAS HOUSING FUNDS LTD.( NOW LOK VIKAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. THE ADDL.CIT RANGE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/JPR/1999[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 254(1)Section 269DSection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…the assessee’s cash book. Hence, such transaction cannot be characterized as loan or deposit and thus, there is no violation of section 269SS/269T of the Act. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- Muthoot M. George Brothers Vs. ACIT 46 ITD 10 (Cochin) (Trib.) (Case Laws Compilation PB 1-9) The Hon’ble ITAT at Para 12 of the order held as under:- There are transfer of funds from and to the sister concerns. There is no evidence to show that money was loaned or kept deposited for a fixed period or repayable on demand. Further, the sister concerns and the assessee are owned by the same fam…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3143/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Section 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G & A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DCIT.Cent.Cir-7(3) Vs. M/s. Sanathnagar Enterprises Ltd., Room No.655, 216, Shah and Nahar Industrial 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Road, Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, M.K. Road, Worli Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai-400 018 PAN/GIR No.AAACB8317J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & DCIT.Cent.Cir-7(3) Vs. M/s. Ajitnath Hi-Tech Room No.655, Builders Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 216, Shah and Nahar M.K. Road, Industrial Road, Off. Dr. E. Mumbai – 400 020 Moses Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 P…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. MACROTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result , both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1415/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…45 ITR 270 (Bom)] holding that violation of Ss. 269SS and 269T of the Act could not be imputed in accepting and repaying loan by passing a journal entry. Some of them are: (i) Order of Cochin Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in Muthoot M. George Bankers v. ACIT (46 ITD 10), dated 16.04.1993; (ii) Order of Ahmedabad Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in Bombay Conductors & Electricals Ltd. v. DCIT (90 Taxman 138), dated 30,11.1995; (iii) Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Noida Toll Bridge (262 ITR 260), rendered on 28.01,2003; (iv) Order of Agra Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in ITO v. Amarnath Shivraj (HUF) (…

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

…g of s. 269SS and as such, no penalty is leviable under s. 271D. Accordingly, the penalty is cancelled.—Shrepak Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (1998) 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 t…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VARDHVINAYAK TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2576/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Raman (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)

Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271D

…iii) Order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. in ITA No. 542/Mum/2007, dated 29.01.2008. (iv) Order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Muthoot M. George Bankers vs. ACIT [1993] 46 ITD 10 (Cochin), dated 16.04.1993. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. We have heard this appeal of Revenue. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the assessee has accepted loan/ deposits from various sisters concerns through journal entries otherwise then account pay…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. LODHA HOME DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 617/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2009-10