Nandhi Dhall Mill v. CIT

373 ITR 510Reported decision2015#7888 most cited

What is Nandhi Dhall Mill v. CIT authority for?

A penalty can be levied under Section 271D for violating Section 269SS by accepting cash loans or deposits without mitigating circumstances, even with purposive interpretation of the law. There is no urgency for an assessee to borrow money in cash in violation of Section 269SS.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Also referred to as

Nandhi Dhall Mill v. CIT · 373 ITR 510 · penalty u/s 271D · Section 269SS · cash loans · cash deposits · violation of section 269SS · penalty for cash transactions · Assessing Officer · CIT(A)

Judgments citing Nandhi Dhall Mill v. CIT

Vasan Medical Centre (India) P Ltd., Trichy vs. Addl.CIT Centrla Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2205/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

Vasan Medical Centre (India) P Ltd., Trichy vs. Addl.CIT Centrla Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2204/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

Vasan Medical Centre (India) P Ltd., Trichy vs. Addl.CIT Centrla Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2203/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

Vasan Medical Centre (India) P Ltd., Trichy vs. Addl.CIT Centrla Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2202/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

Vasan Medical Centre (India) P Ltd., Trichy vs. Addl.CIT Centrla Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2201/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

Vasan Medical Centre (India) P Ltd., Trichy vs. Addl.CIT Centrla Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2200/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

Vasan Medical Centre (India) P Ltd., Trichy vs. Addl.CIT Centrla Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2199/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

Vasan Medical Centre (India) P Ltd., Trichy vs. Addl.CIT Centrla Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2198/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

Vasan Healthcare P Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl.CIT Central Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2197/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

Vasan Healthcare P Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl.CIT Central Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2196/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

Vasan Healthcare P Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl.CIT Central Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2195/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

Vasan Healthcare P Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl.CIT Central Range 2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee M/s

ITA 2194/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Dr.Srinivasa Rao, CIT D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…n given before the ld. Assessing Officer as extracted in the penalty order. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mill Vs. CIT reported in [2015] 373 ITR 510, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT reported in 375 ITR 243(Mad.), held that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cou…

ITO, Virudhunagar vs. S.Arun Kumar, Rajapalayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 95/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vidya, CA
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…of said section. Since the assessee not show any mitigating circumstances, penalty could be levied. There is no urgency for assessee to borrow money in cash in violation of Sec. 269SS of the Act. We place reliance on the judgment of Nandhi Dhall Mills vs. CIT 373 ITR 510. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restore the order of ld. Assessing Officer. The ground of appeal raised by Revenue is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 19th day of June, 2017, at Chennai. (धु"वु"आर.एलरे"डी) (चं"पूजार") Du…

Sri.Yarabolu Seshadri Reddy, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1525/BANG/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 144Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 68

…section 269 SS attracts the penalty under Section 271D. The assessee has failed to show any urgency to avail the loan in cash. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Nandi Dhall Mills Vs. CIT 373 ITR 510. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chamundi Granites (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 239 ITR 694 and submitted that the Assessing Officer is justified in levy of penalty in this case. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Assessing Officer has levied penalty und…

Nandhi Dhall Mill v. CIT (373 ITR 510) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax