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

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

PUSHPALATHA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property during the FY 2016-17 for Rs. 90,00,000/- and the same has been declared in my IT return and also assessment has been done by the ITO 3(2)(4), Bangalore on 09.12.2019. I am a housewife, I have received part of the sale consideration by way of cash due to lack of knowledge about cash

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

273B of the Act for contravening the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and consequently. no penalty under section 271D of the Act ought to have been levied on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds at the time of hearing

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

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

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

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

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