Paro Food Products, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -VI
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory2,590 citing359 ITR 565 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows953 citing242 Taxmann 180 · 2016 · SC
- Muninaga Reddy v. ACIT22 citing396 ITR 538 · 2017 · HC
- Kar HC 10. Safina Hotels Private Limited v. DCIT7 citing237 Taxmann 702 · 2016 · HC
Judgment text not available
The text for this order has not been extracted yet.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Income Tax( Central)- 2 vs M/S Harsh International Pvt. LtdDelhi22 Dec 2020Dismissed
Also relies on Muninaga Reddy v. ACIT and 1 other authority
The High Court held that the ITAT was correct in deleting the penalty. The court reasoned that if the quantum assessment itself is debatable, as indicated by the admission of the appeal by the High Court, then penalty pr...
- M/S Kaveri Associates vs The Assistant CommissionerKarnataka31 Aug 2020Allowed
Also relies on Muninaga Reddy v. ACIT and 1 other authority
The High Court held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 271(1)(c) was issued for the wrong assessment year (2002-03 instead of 1999-00) and lacked specific mention of concealment or...
- Sri.P.M.Abdulla vs The Income Tax OfficerKarnataka8 Sept 2021Allowed
Also relies on Muninaga Reddy v. ACIT
The High Court held that the notices issued for penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271 were defective as they did not specifically state the grounds for imposing penalty, thus violating principles of...
- M/S Gayathri Exports vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-TaxKarnataka24 Apr 2018Allowed
Also relies on Muninaga Reddy v. ACIT
The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective because it failed to specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, as these are ...
- Kpc Medical College and Hospital vs The Principal Commissioner of Income…Calcutta19 Mar 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
The High Court condoned the delay and allowed the review applications, holding that the earlier dismissal was an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court reasoned that since a connected appeal was admitted, th...
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026