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

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

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

SMT SAVITA S GONGADSHETT ,BAGALKOT vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAPUR RANGE , VIJAYAPUR

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

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No.116(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Savita S Gangadshetti, Gorbal Naka, At Ilkal, Tal. Hungund, Bagalkot Dist. Pan No.Aclpg6870B Appellant Vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vijayapur Range, Vijayapur. Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S.Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M. Vijaykumar, Addl.Cit

house property did not materialize, assessee refunded said amount through cheque to his wife. On the question whether acceptance of cash by husband from Page 7 of 10 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

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

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