Thenamal Chhajjer v. JCIT

96 ITD 210Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#11854 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Thenamal Chhajjer v. JCIT

M/S H. K. Infraventure Pvt. Ltd, Varansi vs. Joint. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Varansi

ITA 46/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Viswakarma,CITD.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRIVIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.46/Alld./2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. H.K. InfraventurePvt. Ltd. Joint Commissioner of Income 17, Industrial Colony, Naini, v. Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad-211008, U.P. Varanasi, U.P. PAN:AACCH6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Ramendra Kumar Viswakarma,CITD.R. Date of hearing: 15.09.2022 Date of pronouncement: 13.12.2022 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed…

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

…2 ITR 535 (Pat.) vi. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh (199 ITR 667) Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh (199 ITR 667) vii. Finance Bill, 1984 (146 Finance Bill, 1984 (146 (ST) 162) viii. Circular No. 387 dated 06.07.1984 Circular No. 387 dated 06.07.1984 ix. ThenamalChhajjer (96 ITD 210) ThenamalChhajjer (96 ITD 210) x. P. Bhaskar (340 ITR 560) P. Bhaskar (340 ITR 560) xi. Kasi Consultant Corporation (311 ITR 419) Kasi Consultant Corporation (311 ITR 419) 17. Before us, the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that there was no material before the Ld. Addl./Commissioner…

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

…2 ITR 535 (Pat.) vi. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh (199 ITR 667) Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh (199 ITR 667) vii. Finance Bill, 1984 (146 Finance Bill, 1984 (146 (ST) 162) viii. Circular No. 387 dated 06.07.1984 Circular No. 387 dated 06.07.1984 ix. ThenamalChhajjer (96 ITD 210) ThenamalChhajjer (96 ITD 210) x. P. Bhaskar (340 ITR 560) P. Bhaskar (340 ITR 560) xi. Kasi Consultant Corporation (311 ITR 419) Kasi Consultant Corporation (311 ITR 419) 17. Before us, the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that there was no material before the Ld. Addl./Commissioner…

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Range VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 196/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…confirmed the penalty on the grounds that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim even during the appellate proceedings about the reasonableness of urgency of the cash loan. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgment in the case of Tenamal Chajjer (2005) 96 ITD 210 (Chennai) wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 269SS is very strict and will apply strictly where the loan or deposit is taken or accepted from any other person otherwise by an account payee cheque or account payee draft if the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan or deposit is Rs. 20,000 or more. The…

Sh. Ramneek Sehgal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Range VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 195/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…confirmed the penalty on the grounds that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim even during the appellate proceedings about the reasonableness of urgency of the cash loan. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgment in the case of Tenamal Chajjer (2005) 96 ITD 210 (Chennai) wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 269SS is very strict and will apply strictly where the loan or deposit is taken or accepted from any other person otherwise by an account payee cheque or account payee draft if the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan or deposit is Rs. 20,000 or more. The…

Sh. Ramneek Sehgal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Range VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 194/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…confirmed the penalty on the grounds that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim even during the appellate proceedings about the reasonableness of urgency of the cash loan. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgment in the case of Tenamal Chajjer (2005) 96 ITD 210 (Chennai) wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 269SS is very strict and will apply strictly where the loan or deposit is taken or accepted from any other person otherwise by an account payee cheque or account payee draft if the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan or deposit is Rs. 20,000 or more. The…

Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana vs. Addl. CIT, R-VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 193/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…confirmed the penalty on the grounds that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim even during the appellate proceedings about the reasonableness of urgency of the cash loan. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgment in the case of Tenamal Chajjer (2005) 96 ITD 210 (Chennai) wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 269SS is very strict and will apply strictly where the loan or deposit is taken or accepted from any other person otherwise by an account payee cheque or account payee draft if the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan or deposit is Rs. 20,000 or more. The…

Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana vs. Addl. CIT, R-VII, Ludhiana

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 192/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik
Section 271DSection 271E

…confirmed the penalty on the grounds that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim even during the appellate proceedings about the reasonableness of urgency of the cash loan. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgment in the case of Tenamal Chajjer (2005) 96 ITD 210 (Chennai) wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 269SS is very strict and will apply strictly where the loan or deposit is taken or accepted from any other person otherwise by an account payee cheque or account payee draft if the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan or deposit is Rs. 20,000 or more. The…

B.Raajaraajan, Erode vs. JCIT, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1371/CHNY/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1371/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 271D

…ed the assessee has received cash exceeding `20,000/- from three persons. There was no reasonable cause which forced the assessee to receive the money in cash. Placing reliance on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in Thenamal Chhajjer v. JCIT (2005) 96 ITD 210, the Ld. D.R. submitted that even for genuine loan or deposit, the assessee has to explain why it was obtained in cash. If the explanation was reasonable or acceptable, then penalty may not be levied under Section 271D of the Act. In this case, there was no explanation except to say that the assessee needed money urgently for business purpose.…

Thenamal Chhajjer v. JCIT (96 ITD 210) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax