← All Phrases

“penalty under section 271D”

PenaltySection 271DSection 271D244 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271D is P.V. Doshi v. CIT (113 ITR 22), cited in 179 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271D

P.V. Doshi v. CIT
113 ITR 22 · 1978 · High Court
179
citing judgments

The lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be waived and can be challenged at a later stage, even if not raised initially. An invalid reassessment due to such jurisdictional defects cannot sustain subsequent penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Hissaria Bros.
291 ITR 244 · 2007 · High Court
132
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings for defaults under Sections 269SS and 269T are independent of assessment proceedings; therefore, the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for imposing such penalties is not contingent on the completion of appellate quantum proceedings.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.
262 ITR 260 · 2003 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Journal entries for accepting or repaying loans and deposits, without any actual cash transaction, do not violate the provisions of Section 269SS or Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, such transactions do not attract penalties under Section 271D or Section 271E.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd.
345 ITR 270 · 2012 · High Court
114
citing judgments

Transactions involving the receipt or repayment of loans or deposits solely through journal entries, without actual cash movement, contravene Sections 269SS and 269T. However, penalties under Sections 271D or 271E for such contraventions are not imposable if the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause under Section 273B, particularly when no cash has passed between parties.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills
379 ITR 521 · 2015 · Supreme Court
110
citing judgments

The assessing officer must record explicit satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under sections like 271D, 271E, 269SS, 269T, or 269ST; a mere recommendation or information to another authority is insufficient to validate the penalty.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 312 · 2017 · High Court
86
citing judgments

The date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of Section 275(1)(c) is when the Assessing Officer records a satisfaction or recommends penalty, not the later date when the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issues the penalty notice.

CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel
315 ITR 163 · 2009 · High Court
75
citing judgments

A genuine personal transaction or a non-returnable transfer between family members or related entities does not constitute a 'loan' or 'deposit' under Section 269SS, and therefore, no penalty can be levied under Section 271D.

CIT v. Hissaria Brothers
386 ITR 719 · 2016 · Supreme Court
68
citing judgments

The relevant date for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for passing penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of passing the assessment order.

Judgments citing penalty under section 271D

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed ex-parte

ITA 4550/DEL/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 1993-94]

Section 269SSection 271D

case records with the assistance of the Id. Sr. DR for the Revenue. The infringement of provision of Section 269SS and ensuing penalty under Section 271D is in question. 8. On perusal of the case records, it appears that the assessee company TAPL was a limited company engaged in manufacturing

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

Revenue is dismissed. 9. Now coming to ITA No.108/Ahd/2023 filed by the assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271D of the Act as the assessee has grossly failed to prove that there was any reasonable cause to accept deposits otherwise than through Bank ... been added to his total income and hence such amount of Rs.1,89,00,000/- cannot be treated as cash/loan and, therefore, no penalty under Section 271D and 271E of the Act will be levied. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty of Rs.3,97,87,485/- under Section

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 192/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

Revenue is dismissed. 9. Now coming to ITA No.108/Ahd/2023 filed by the assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271D of the Act as the assessee has grossly failed to prove that there was any reasonable cause to accept deposits otherwise than through Bank ... been added to his total income and hence such amount of Rs.1,89,00,000/- cannot be treated as cash/loan and, therefore, no penalty under Section 271D and 271E of the Act will be levied. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty of Rs.3,97,87,485/- under Section

M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara vs. The Jt.CIT, Central Range, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 109/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

Revenue is dismissed. 9. Now coming to ITA No.108/Ahd/2023 filed by the assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271D of the Act as the assessee has grossly failed to prove that there was any reasonable cause to accept deposits otherwise than through Bank ... been added to his total income and hence such amount of Rs.1,89,00,000/- cannot be treated as cash/loan and, therefore, no penalty under Section 271D and 271E of the Act will be levied. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty of Rs.3,97,87,485/- under Section

M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara vs. The Jt.CIT, Central Range, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 108/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

Revenue is dismissed. 9. Now coming to ITA No.108/Ahd/2023 filed by the assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271D of the Act as the assessee has grossly failed to prove that there was any reasonable cause to accept deposits otherwise than through Bank ... been added to his total income and hence such amount of Rs.1,89,00,000/- cannot be treated as cash/loan and, therefore, no penalty under Section 271D and 271E of the Act will be levied. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty of Rs.3,97,87,485/- under Section

Subhash Chand, Palwal vs. ITO Ward II(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2009/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyasubhash Chand, Vs. Ito, Ward Ii (4), Village Baroli, Faridabad. Palwal – 121 102 (Haryana). (Pan : Awapc7965Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2024 Date Of Order : 15.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271D

assessee. However, he held that there is violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act and directed the AO to initiate penalty under section 271D of the Act. 5. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both the parties and perused the records

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 788/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

considered and accordingly, the assessee was given a show-cause vide letter dated 02.11.2021 and 27.12.2021 to furnish his reply as to why penalty under section 271D of the Act should not be levied for violation of section 269SS of the Act. The assessee assailed the proposed penalty, 3 I.T.A ... ground that the initiation of penalty was barred by limitation. However, rejecting the submissions of the assessee, the appropriate authority levied 100% penalty under section 271D of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. 4. In the assessment order, Ld. AO noted from the seized material that the assessee

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 787/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

considered and accordingly, the assessee was given a show-cause vide letter dated 02.11.2021 and 27.12.2021 to furnish his reply as to why penalty under section 271D of the Act should not be levied for violation of section 269SS of the Act. The assessee assailed the proposed penalty, 3 I.T.A ... ground that the initiation of penalty was barred by limitation. However, rejecting the submissions of the assessee, the appropriate authority levied 100% penalty under section 271D of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. 4. In the assessment order, Ld. AO noted from the seized material that the assessee

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 786/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

considered and accordingly, the assessee was given a show-cause vide letter dated 02.11.2021 and 27.12.2021 to furnish his reply as to why penalty under section 271D of the Act should not be levied for violation of section 269SS of the Act. The assessee assailed the proposed penalty, 3 I.T.A ... ground that the initiation of penalty was barred by limitation. However, rejecting the submissions of the assessee, the appropriate authority levied 100% penalty under section 271D of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. 4. In the assessment order, Ld. AO noted from the seized material that the assessee

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 785/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

considered and accordingly, the assessee was given a show-cause vide letter dated 02.11.2021 and 27.12.2021 to furnish his reply as to why penalty under section 271D of the Act should not be levied for violation of section 269SS of the Act. The assessee assailed the proposed penalty, 3 I.T.A ... ground that the initiation of penalty was barred by limitation. However, rejecting the submissions of the assessee, the appropriate authority levied 100% penalty under section 271D of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. 4. In the assessment order, Ld. AO noted from the seized material that the assessee

Premji Bhuralal Gala, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on the validity of the re-opening u/s

ITA 3081/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Your Honors Should Have Been Filed Within 60 Days Of Receipt Of The Order Of Cxit(A) But The Same Could Not Be Done.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Premji Bhuralal Gala Section 271D of the Act for failure to comply, then respondents could have commenced action or proceedings towards imposition of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. Once respondent proceeds on the basis that petitioner had accepted cash loan of Rs. 16,30,000/- that loan could

DCIT CC 8(2), Mumbai vs. White Feather Films Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7651/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. White Feather Films Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7642/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7651/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Dcit, Central, Circle-8(2) बिधम/ M/S. White Feather Films 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Svp Nagar, Mhada Road, Mumbai-400020. Bungalow No. 91, Four Bungalow, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw4428R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal A/W M/S. Neha Paranjpe Revenue By: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai Dated 20.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against The Penalty Confirmed By Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ao) U/S 271E/271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

held that deposits/loans received through journal entries do not fall with the mischief of Section 269SS of the Act, so as to invite penalty under Section 271D of the Act. This, the Tribunal did by following its earlier orders in the case of V.N. Parekh Ltd. and Ketan Parekh ... compliance with Section 269SS of the Act would certainly be a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271D of the Act" 8. As noticed supra the transactions, in the instant cases, were undertaken during the period from

Homoeopath Toufeeq Ahmed, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 631/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Phanindra &For Respondent: Shri Naveen Kumar, DR
Section 269SSection 271D

sale consideration of Rs. 41,53,000/- under sale deed dated 07/11/2016 in cash. Obviously, it is only for this lapse, a penalty under section 271D of the Act was levied on assessee. It is, therefore, clear that even according to the Revenue, assessee received the sale consideration in cash

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 580/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

Gupta vs. ACIT dated 27.01.2020 for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice for imposing penalty under section 271D of the Act was issued on 06.03.2020 and the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the penalty

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 579/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

Gupta vs. ACIT dated 27.01.2020 for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice for imposing penalty under section 271D of the Act was issued on 06.03.2020 and the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the penalty

Mani Sundaram, Devakottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 899/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.899/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mani Sundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 52, Thiyagigal Road, Ward-1, Karaikudi. Devakottai, Tamil Nadu 630 302. [Pan:Cwops9124D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 21.06.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M/S. Surabi Pvc Pipes & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 20.01.2018 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹.3,03,720/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee has availed cash loan in contravention of provision of section 269SS of the Act, penalty under section 271D of the Act of ₹.8,37,550/- has been levied. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271D ... relatives, which were subsequently the loans, were treated as gift and credited to his capital account. Therefore, it was submitted that levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is unwarranted. By relying upon the decisions in the cast of CIT v. Smt. M. Yesodha

Nammalvar Lingusamy, Valsaravakkam vs. CIT [Appeals]-14, Chennai

ITA 532/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.532/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nammalvar Lingusamy, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of 9, Janaki Nagar, Solai Krishnan Street, Income Tax, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. Non Corporate Range 20, Chennai. [Pan:Acbpn0214G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J.K. Reddy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 31.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days In Filing The Appeal & Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause, The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

received part consideration in cash, which is in violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D of the Act. On appeal, though the assessee has raised various grounds before the ld. CIT(A), praying for deleting the penalty levied ... cash, which is, in violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty under section 271D of the Act. 6.4 We have carefully perused the copy of the registered document No. 2767/2016 filed by the assessee, wherein, all the pages

M/S. Svt Wholesale Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 6(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1030/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Svt Wholesale Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, 141, 4Th Floor, Svt Tower, 1St Cross, Range – 6(1), Main Magadi Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 023. Pan : Aaucs 4530 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Kaushik M, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Kaushik M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

file any objections for the levy of penalty. Assessee filed its reply on 24.03.2022 against the show cause notice issued for imposing penalty under section 271D of the Act. It was submitted that it is the first year of the operation of the business of the assessee and there were ... business exigency that arose in the initial years of its business. However, the objections raised by the assessee were rejected and AO imposed penalty under section 271D of the Act amounting to Rs.15,60,000/- being the entire loan received from the Director of the assessee company. 4. Aggrieved

Farman Khan, Chaksu vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

supported based on the arguments presented. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, and the penalty under Section 271D remains applicable. Based on the preceding discussions, the appellant's appeal has been dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed ... supported based on the arguments presented. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, and the penalty under Section 271D remains applicable. Based on the preceding discussions, the appellant's appeal has been dismissed.’’ 16 FARMAN KHAN VS ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR