Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Noordeen Ahmed Amina , Salem vs Ito , Nfac , Delhi on 26 July, 2023

Anguri Devi Khandelwal (Radha Mohan ... vs Dcit Circle-4, Jaipur, Jaipur on 8 September, 2025

"Admittedly, in the present case, the assessee failed to respond certain notices of the Assessing Officer, which were issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1), however, in response, subsequent notices, the assessee has made necessary replies and accordingly assessment was completed under section 143(3), therefore, respectfully, following the analogy drawn in the decision referred to Saleem Ahmed Khan v. Income-tax Officer [2023] 156 taxmann.com 36 (Jabalpur - Trib.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sreenivasan Ramya,Coimbatore vs Acit, Ncc-2,, Coimbatore on 16 April, 2026

13. The judicial precedents cited by the ld.AR also lend support to the view that where cash is received as part of genuine sale consideration of immovable property and the transaction is duly recorded, section 269SS may not be invoked in a rigid or mechanical manner. The coordinate bench decisions referred to by the assessee, namely Noordeen Ahmed Amina v. ITO, Wahid Ali v. JCIT, and ITO v. R. Dhinagharan HUF (supra), have taken the view that genuine and disclosed cash sale consideration recorded in registered property documents does not automatically justify levy of penalty u/s.271D. Though each case turns on its own facts, the ratio emerging from these decisions is that the substance of the transaction and the legislative purpose of the provision must prevail over a purely literal or technical approach.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shree Dhevi Associates , Salem vs Acit , Range-1, Salem on 30 August, 2023

7. We carefully considered the submissions of the parties. We observe that, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal. The Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Noordeen Ahmed Amina v. ITO, ITA No.1118/Chny/2022 dated 26-07-2023 decided a similar case in favor of the assessee. In that case, it was observed as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Baburao Rambhau Kapte, Chandrapur vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 4 June, 2024

7. Having heard the rival arguments and on a perusal of the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that similar issue came up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Chennai Bench, wherein one of us (Judicial Member) is a party to that order dated 26/07/2023, passed in Noordeen Ahmed Amina v/s ITO, ITA no.1118/Chny./2022, for the assessment year 2018-19, and the issue before the Tribunal in Noordeen Ahmed Amina (supra) was, the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer on the finding that the assessee has received ` 5 lakh in cash on sale of immovable property of ` 50 lakh, which was held to be in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. The relevant Page | 4 Shri Baburao Rambhau Kapte ITA no.39/Nag./2022 findings of the Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271D of the Act and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) by observing as follows:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1