Sadhna Bros. v. ACIT

46 SOT 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#25056 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing Sadhna Bros. v. ACIT

Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vegesna, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vs. National E-Assesment Centre, Vegesna Delhi 10-50-2, Lazarus Bangalow (Dcit/Acit Waltair Main Road Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam) [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) Dated 12.07.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 14.02.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

…isions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Such deeming fiction provided 'u/s 2(22)(e) cannot be considered as furnishing of inaccurate particulars or income. We further observe that the ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of Sadhná Bros vs ACJT (2011) 46 SOT 1 (Ind)(URO) held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of loans received by the assessee from a company in which he was holding beneficial shareholding which was brought to tax by invoking deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be a ground for imposing poaIty. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below :-J “For imposing a penalty und…

M/S Naraina Institute of Management Studies Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 (4), Kanpur

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

ITA 404/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-2014

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

…e) of the Income-tax 10 ITA No.982 /Mum/2015 Act, 1961. Such deeming fiction provided u/s 2(22)(e) cannot be considered as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We further observe that the ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of Sadhna Bros vs ACIT (2011) 46 SOT 1 (Ind)(URO) held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of loans received by the assessee from a company in which he was holding beneficial shareholding which was brought to tax by invoking deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be a ground for imposing penalty. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:- I.T.A. No.404/Lkw/2018 Asse…

P. James, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…isions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such deeming fiction provided u/s 2(22)(e) cannot be considered as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We further observe that the ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of Sadhna Bros vs ACIT (2011) 46 SOT 1 (Ind)(URO) held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of loans received by the assessee from a company in which he was holding beneficial shareholding which was brought to tax by invoking deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be a ground for imposing penalty. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:- For imposing a penaltv u…

Sadhna Bros. v. ACIT (46 SOT 1) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax