Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Deccan Mechanical And Chemical ... on 29 June, 2005

M/S.Nandhi Dhall Mills vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 February, 2015

In fact, the assessee himself has relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income -Tax V. Balaji Traders reported in (2008) 303 ITR 312 (Mad) and in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax V. Deccan Designs (India) P. Ltd. reported in (2012) 347 ITR 580 (Mad), wherein this Court clearly held that unless there is any inconsistency in the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal or the Authorities concerned, the Court should not interfere with such a finding of fact.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - R Sudhakar - Full Document

Smt.Nayanaben H Kotecha,, Ahmedabad vs The Jt.Commisoner Of Income Tax, Rg-6,, ... on 24 January, 2018

vs. Luhar Bupendra Singh Hakamsingh vide Tax Appeal no. 537 of 2016 dated 04/07/2016 iii CIT vs. Dimple Yadav 93 CCH 207 (All) iv CIT vs. Balaji Traders 303 ITR 312 (Mad) I.T.A No. 3383/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 6 Nayanaben H. Kotecha vs. JCIT v CIT vs. Rashi Injection Moulders 368 ITR 527 (Mad) vi CIT vs. Deccan Designs (India) P. Ltd. 347 ITR 580 (Mad) vii DCIT Rupen Das 136 TTJ 80 (Kol)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tej Narayan Agarwal, Hyd, Hyderabad vs Addl.Cit, Range-8, Hyd, Hyderabad on 27 July, 2018

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee had furnished all the necessary details of the transaction before the CIT (A), but the CIT (A) has failed to consider the details filed by the assessee. On examination of the documents filed by the assessee, we are convinced that the amount received and repaid by the assessee subsequently is not a loan. This is a transaction done on behalf of his children to accommodate than in obtaining DD's without charges and cannot be considered as taking of loan or repayment of loan in cash. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, i.e. CIT vs. Deccan Designs (India) P Ltd reported in 347 ITR 580 (Mad) and also in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. All India Deaf and Dumb Society reported in 283 ITR 113 (Del) are to the effect that where the transactions are genuine and enough reasons are offered by the assessee to justify the cash transaction, the penalty is not leviable both u/s 271D Page 4 of 5 ITA Nos 1378 of 2015 and 563 of 2016 Tej Narayan Agarwal Hyderabad.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1