Babuji Jacob v. ITO

430 ITR 259High Court2021#1539 most cited

What is Babuji Jacob v. ITO authority for?

A penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is vitiated if the show cause notice issued under Section 274 fails to specify the exact charge against the assessee by not striking out the inapplicable portions, thereby denying clear communication of the specific default (concealment or inaccurate particulars). The entire penalty proceedings, including the penalty order, are rendered invalid in such a scenario.

74

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Babuji Jacob v. ITO · Section 274 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty show cause notice · non-specification of charge · striking inapplicable portions · vitiated penalty proceedings · inaccurate particulars of income · concealment of income · Madras High Court

Also reported as

124 Taxmann.com 363

Sections most often in play

Section 274Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 139(1)Section 270ASection 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 274(1)immunity under section 270aasection 271(1b)section 275(1)(a)section 271aab(1)penalty under section 271aabsection 270aasection 270a(8)section 275(1)section 270a(9)mis-reporting of incomepenalty proceedings initiated

Judgments citing Babuji Jacob v. ITO

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. SRI MAHESWARY GRANITES (P) LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3054/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3054/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sri Maheswary Granites (P) Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Central Circle – 2, Old No.115, New No.84, Coimbatore Bashyakarlu Road West, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore Pan: Aafcs 9118K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…(Karnataka) and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) and subsequently followed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob vs. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). 11. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v. R. Elangovan (TCA. Nos. 770 & 771 of 2018) had followed the above proposition of law, wherein the Court while dealing with a Penalty Notice issued u/s. 271AAB of the Act held that Penalty Notice which does not specifically mention the provision of law :- 16 -: under which th…

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

ITA 2743/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short 'The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short 'Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…impugned notice is bad in law for being vague/arbitrary and not issued without application of mind. In order to buttress his arguments, he has cited the case-law/decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras), wherein, in on an identical case, penalty was levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; and the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty, inter alia, on the ground that the notice issued by AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proposed penalty was initiated for concealment of…

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

ITA 2742/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…impugned notice is bad in law for being vague/arbitrary and not issued without application of mind. In order to buttress his arguments, he has cited the case-law/decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras), wherein, in on an identical case, penalty was levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; and the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty, inter alia, on the ground that the notice issued by AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proposed penalty was initiated for concealment of…

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2741/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…mpugned notice is bad in law for being vague/arbitrary and not issued without application of mind. In order to buttress his arguments, he has cited the case-law/decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras), wherein, in on an identical case, penalty was levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; and the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty, inter alia, on the ground that the notice issued by AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proposed penalty was initiated for concealment…

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO LIQUIDHUB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155Section 155(18)Section 18Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.2753/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India s Income Tax Limited(Successor to Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase III, MIDC SEZ, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. PAN: AAACL8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Sudin Sabnis…

JOSEPH ABRAHAM PETER JOSEPH,MADURAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.M. Muriga Boopathy, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 271(1)(c)

…e was being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And such actions of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which Joseph Abraham Peter Joseph :: 4 :: the assessee is bei…

N. VIJAY KUMAR, ACIT, CHENNAI vs. RAJAH MUTHIAH CHETTIAR CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue & CO of assessee are

ITA 2097/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 9

…e Act is quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Madras), where the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with the issue of show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, and after considering its earlier decision in the case of Sudaram Finance Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250, held that issuing a printed form of notice without striking inapplicable portion in the notice and no…

MR. ARUMUGASAMY VASANTHA VIKAS,VIRDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, CORP. WARD-4, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Stay

ITA 2108/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Rama Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ee was being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And such action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 ITA Nos.2107 & 2108/Chny/2025 & SP Nos.76 & 77/Chny/2025 (AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12) Mr. Arumugasamy Vasantha Vikas :: 4 :: (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to l…

MR. ARUMUGASAMY VASANTHA VIKAS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, CORP. WARD-4. ,MADURAI, MUDRAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Stay

ITA 2107/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Rama Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ee was being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And such action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 ITA Nos.2107 & 2108/Chny/2025 & SP Nos.76 & 77/Chny/2025 (AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12) Mr. Arumugasamy Vasantha Vikas :: 4 :: (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to l…

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7885/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ering the ratio of various binding judicial precedents, the penalty stood vitiated for want of framing of specific charge. The copies of these decisions have been placed on record which include the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Babuji Jacob vs ITO (430 ITR 259) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in PCIT V/s Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P.) Ltd (272 Taxman 157) against which revenue’s Special Page 3 of 21 Leave petition (SLP) has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 130 Taxmann.com 379. The Ld. Sr. DR, has similarly relied on decision of High Cou…

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(c)Section 271Section 41(1)

…e Act is quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Madras), where the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with the issue of show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, and after considering its earlier decision in the case of Sudaram Finance Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250, held that issuing a printed form of notice without striking inapplicable portion in the notice and no…

R V R NAGESH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE VENGATTARAYALU RAJAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD - 22(4), TAMBARAM, TAMBARAM

ITA 789/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.789/Chny/2025

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nsel for the assessee placed reliance upon a plethora of judicial pronouncements, inter-alia, of this tribunal as at 905 – 902 / Chny /2020, ITA No.2253 / Chny / 2024, ІТА 1154 – 1157 / Chny / 2023, of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob 430 ITR 259 and of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158. It was accordingly requested that as the penalty order was infructuous and invalid, the penalty order imposing penalty in its case of Rs.10 lakhs may be set aside. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissi…

PANJURAJAN GANESAN,,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT, CC - 2,, MADURAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’डी’न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यागयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ITA Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, No.74A, velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [PAN:ABYPG3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocat…

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

ITA 3297/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…e\nlimb under which the penalty has been imposed.\nThe appellant has submitted various case laws, wherein it has held that if\npenalty notice is vague, it vitiates the penalty proceedings:\n•\nHon'ble Madras High Court in the case of BabujiJacob v. ITO [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Mad)\n•\nHon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case ofCIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013]\n359 ITR 565 (Kar); and CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar).\n•\nHon'ble Delhi High Court (Del) in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC [2022] 142 taxmann.com 38\n•\nHon'ble ITAT - Chennai ShriMelekandyPu…

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

ITA 3296/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (Pan: Aamts 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…nt the limb under which the penalty has been imposed. The appellant has submitted various case laws, wherein it has held that if penalty notice is vague, it vitiates the penalty proceedings: • Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of BabujiJacob v. ITO [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Mad) • Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case ofCIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar); and CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar). • Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Del) in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC [2022] 142 taxmann.com 38 • Hon'ble ITAT - Chennai ShriMelekandyPuthalath…

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…t the limb under which the penalty has been imposed. The appellant has submitted various case laws, wherein it has held that if penalty notice is vague, it vitiates the penalty proceedings: • Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of BabujiJacob v. ITO [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Mad) • Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case ofCIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar); and CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar). • Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Del) in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC [2022] 142 taxmann.com 38 • Hon’ble ITAT – Chennai – ShriMelekandyPuthala…

ST. JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

ITA 3294/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…nt the limb under which the penalty has been imposed. The appellant has submitted various case laws, wherein it has held that if penalty notice is vague, it vitiates the penalty proceedings: • Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of BabujiJacob v. ITO [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Mad) • Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case ofCIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar); and CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar). • Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Del) in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC [2022] 142 taxmann.com 38 • Hon'ble ITAT - Chennai ShriMelekandyPuthalath…

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…t the limb under which the penalty has been imposed. The appellant has submitted various case laws, wherein it has held that if penalty notice is vague, it vitiates the penalty proceedings: • Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of BabujiJacob v. ITO [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Mad) • Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case ofCIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar); and CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar). • Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Del) in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC [2022] 142 taxmann.com 38 • Hon’ble ITAT – Chennai – ShriMelekandyPuthala…

KAWARILAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2832/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 132Section 153CSection 270A

…e Act is quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Madras), where the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with the issue of show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, and after considering its earlier decision in the case of Sudaram Finance Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250, held that issuing a printed form of notice without striking inapplicable portion in the notice and no…

KAWARILAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE-1(2) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2831/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 132Section 153CSection 270A

…e Act is quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Madras), where the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with the issue of show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, and after considering its earlier decision in the case of Sudaram Finance Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250, held that issuing a printed form of notice without striking inapplicable portion in the notice and no…

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

Babuji Jacob v. ITO (430 ITR 259) — Cited in 74 Judgments | BharatTax