Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs Dcit, Bangalore on 10 April, 2018

M/S. Sri Ambhrinee Vidyesha Souharda ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, , Shimoga on 27 August, 2024

14.1 It is the admitted position that the specified bank notes (cessation of liabilities) Act 2017 provides that no person shall knowingly or voluntarily hold, transfer, or receive any specified bank note on and from the appointed date i.e. 31st day of December 2016. Before 31st December 2016 i.e. between 9th November 2016 to 31st December, the banks, and other institutions such as petrol pumps, hospitals, and Government Department were allowed to accept SBN with certain restrictions. In other words, up to the appointed date, the Government of India and RBI were bound to exchange the SBN once they are tendered for exchange until 30th December 2016. Accordingly, such SBN cannot be treated as just a piece of paper having no value on or after 9 November 2016 as alleged by the revenue. We also find that the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Raju Dinesh Kumar v. DCIT reported in 159 taxmann.com 1598 involving identical facts and circumstances has held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs S R Trust, Madurai on 26 May, 2025

Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of cash deposit of SBNs. 10.2 Furthermore, as contended by the ld. AR, the cash deposited in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetisation period was lawfully collected and such deposit was not prohibited under the provisions of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. In accordance with the said Act, the 'appointed date' beyond which transactions in SBNs were no longer permitted was 31.12.2016. Therefore, we find merit in the argument advanced by the ld. AR. This issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Raju Dinesh Kumar vs. DCIT (supra), wherein, under an identical set of facts, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer after duly considering the following precedents rendered by this Tribunal: M/s. Micky Fireworks Industries vs. ACIT - ITA No. 264/2023 dated 26.07.2023; Mrs. Umamaheshwari vs. ITO - ITA No. 527/Chny/2022 dated 14.10.2022; and Amar Sparklers Factory vs. ITO - ITA No. 808/Chny/2023 dated 11.10.2023, and held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sri Balaji Educational And ... vs Acit, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai on 1 December, 2025

Similar decision has been given by the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai in various cases such as Shri Raju Dinesh Kumar vs DCIT in ITA No. 1321/Chny/2023 dated 19.01.2024 & Amar Sparklers Factory v. ITO in ITA No. 808/Chny/2023 dated 11.10.2023. Similar findings have been given by various benches of the Hon'ble ITAT. Thus, the SBNs received by an assessee during normal course of business cannot be treated as income of the assessee if source for the same is established.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. N A Haris , Bangalore vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 15 February, 2021

38. The ld. AR relying on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kar, Bangalore vs ACIT, Bangalore in ITA No.596/Bang/2014 dated 11.05.2016 submitted that the provisions of section 48 or 55(1)(b) do not stipulate time frame within which the payment has to be made. The assessee has paid the commission amount exclusively for the purchase of property and cost of acquisition includes all the expenses incurred by way of commission or brokerage towards purchase of a capital asset. The finding of the AO that tax must be deducted at source on payment of commission amount is absurd as the profits are chargeable under the head income from capital gains. The provisions contained under the head capital gains doesn't stipulate the assessee to deduct tax at source to claim commission amount as part of cost of acquisition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, Chennai vs Sri Balaji Educational Amd Trust ... on 1 December, 2025

Similar decision has been given by the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai in various cases such as Shri Raju Dinesh Kumar vs DCIT in ITA No. 1321/Chny/2023 dated 19.01.2024 & Amar Sparklers Factory v. ITO in ITA No. 808/Chny/2023 dated 11.10.2023. Similar findings have been given by various benches of the Hon'ble ITAT. Thus, the SBNs received by an assessee during normal course of business cannot be treated as income of the assessee if source for the same is established.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abhinavasri Vividodesha Souharda ... vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, , Koppal on 27 August, 2024

12.1 It is the admitted position that the specified bank notes (cessation of liabilities) Act 2017 provides that no person shall knowingly or voluntarily hold, transfer, or receive any specified bank note on and from the appointed date i.e. 31st day of December 2016. Before 31st December 2016 i.e. between 9th November 2016 to 31st December, the banks, and other institutions such as petrol pumps, hospitals, and Government Department were allowed to accept SBN with certain restrictions. In other words, up to the appointed date, the Government of India and RBI were bound to exchange the SBN once they are tendered for exchange until 30th December 2016. Accordingly, such SBN cannot be treated as just a piece of paper having no value on or after 9 November 2016 as alleged by the revenue. We also find that the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Raju Dinesh Kumar v. DCIT reported in 159 taxmann.com 1598 involving identical facts and circumstances has held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anilkumar Sukumaran, Alappuzha vs The Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax , ... on 26 September, 2024

9. It is the admitted position that the specified bank notes (cessation of liabilities) Act 2017 provides that no person shall 4 ITA No.689/Coch/2023 & SA No.156/Coch/2023. Sri.Anilkumar Sukumaran knowingly or voluntarily hold, transfer, or receive any specified bank note on and from the appointed date i.e. 31st day of December 2016. Before 31st December 2016 i.e. between 9th November 2016 to 31st December the banks, and other institutions such as petrol pumps, hospitals, and Government Department were allowed to accept SBN with certain restrictions. In other words, up to the appointed date, the Government of India and RBI were bound to exchange the SBN once they are tendered for exchange until 30th December 2016. Accordingly, such SBN cannot be treated as just a piece of paper having no value on or after 9 November 2016 as alleged by the revenue. We also find that the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Raju Dinesh Kumar v. DCIT reported in 159 taxmann.com 1598 involving identical facts and circumstances has held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next