SRI SANMATHI AMBANNA ,CHITRADURGA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DAVANAGERE RANGE , DAVANAGERE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Sanmathi Ambanna, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Prop: M/S. Mahadevi Transport, Income-Tax, Railway Station Road, Davanagere Range, Challakere, Davanagere. Chitradurga – 577 522. Pan : Agjpa 3024 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas K. Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : .12.2018

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SMT DEEPIKA ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-5, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.561/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt. Deepika, C/O M/S. T M Marketing (India), 12, Ground Floor, Tulsi Plaza, S.V. Lane, 3Rd Cross, Chickpet, Bangalore-560 053. …. Appellant. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 5, Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate. Respondent By : Smt. Padma Meenkashi, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017. O R D E R Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. : This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dt.7.12.2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore-2 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit (Appeals) Whereby The Cit (Appeals) Confirmed The Order Of The Assessing Officer Imposing Penalty On The Assessee Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act').

house 5 property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

BHAVANISHANKER NAIK,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

property on 31.1.2015 at the time of executing the agreement of sale. In that agreement in Annexure-II, a sum of Rs.7 lakhs was received from the buyer was specifically mentioned. 6. It was also submitted that word “specified sum” was inserted in section 269SS of the Act w.e.f. 1.6.2015 and therefore the sum received on 31.1.2015 could

MR.MOHAMMADYSUF R, DARGAD ,DHARWAD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2 , HUBBALI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

MR.MOHAMMADYUSUF R.DARGAD ,DHARWAD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2 , HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SHRI.GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SMT. RAJESHWARI PANDITH,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

property constructed at No.617, Hebbal, Bangalore. The assessment was completed by disallowing the exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act on the premises that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden placed on her with respect to the construction of residential house and has not filed any documentary evidences in support of the claim of deduction

SRI RAJIV MANHARLAL DUSEJA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2007-08

house ITA No.561/Bang/2017 property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from his wife would amount to taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS , the tribunal held that it cannot be construed as loan attracting provisions of Sec.269SS