Muthoot M. George Bankers v. ACIT

46 ITD 10Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1993#2457 most cited

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.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Muthoot M. George Bankers v. ACIT · Section 269SS · Section 269T · Section 271D · Section 271E · inter-concern transactions · sister concerns · definition of loan or deposit · cash transactions · penalty levy

Sections most often in play

Section 269SSSection 271DSection 271ESection 143(3)Section 269T

Issues it is cited on

section 269tsection 269spenalty under section 271dsection 273section 271esection 269sssection 271dsection 269section 273bshare application moneylevy of penaltysection 26

Judgments citing Muthoot M. George Bankers v. ACIT

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Lodha Properties Development 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 6613/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…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) (…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Brightgold Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2582/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2582/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Brightgold Construction Income Tax, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 7(3), 216, Shah & Nahar Vs. 6Th Room No. 655, Floor, Industrial Road, Off. Dr E. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Moses Road, Worli Mumbai- Mumbai-400 020 400 018 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabclr2913R

For Appellant: Shri G.L.V. Prasad, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रिान, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 2582/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner of M/s Brightgold Construction Income Tax, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 7(3), 216, Shah and Nahar Vs. 6th Room No. 655, Floor, Industrial Road, Off. Dr E. AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, Moses Road, Worli Mumbai- Mumbai-400 020 400 018 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थ…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -7(3), Mumbai vs. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Lodha Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue and CO of assessee both are dismissed

ITA 6422/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…ii) 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. 8. In view of the above, the CIT(A) held in para 6.4 to 6.8 as under: - “6.4 Ground No. 3 to 9 are against the finding of the Addl.CIT that penalty was leviable u/s.271D of the Act since no reasonable cause could be found in this case. In this regard it is observed that the words 15 CO. 111/Mum/2018 'reasonable cause…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. National Standard India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6607/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 275(1)

…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) (…

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)

…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.” 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 nee…

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

…f 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 \/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 th…

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

…lender and lendee or depositor or deposite between the two. The transaction between them was in the nature of temporary adjustment / accommodation. It was held that :- The Cochin Bench of the Tribunal has also held in Muthoot M.George Bankers vs ACIT (1993) 46 ITD 10 (Coch) that temporary accommodation 6 ITA Nos.209-210/K/2013-B-AM M/s. S.R Associated Construction or adjustment between sister concern does not tantamount to loan or deposit and as such, the transactions do not attract section 269SS of the Act. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal has also considered the similar isseue in the case of Dillu Cine E…