(Bom) 216 ITR 660 (ii) H.P. State Forest Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT & Ors. (HP)

246 ITR 327High Court2000#17357 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,628 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of income section 271(1)section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 company section 14 india

Judgments citing (Bom) 216 ITR 660 (ii) H.P. State Forest Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT & Ors. (HP)

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…ch adjustment? The notice is valid. No wonder, the Hon’ble Courts have considered the matter in perspective, and validated the issue of notice where the ‘relevant’ part thereof was not struck-off, as in T.A. Abdul Khadar (supra); CIT v. Maharaj Krishan [2000] 246 ITR 327 (Del), to cite two. Instances w.r.t. s.271(1)(c) are again several, viz., Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT [2018] 400 ITR 292 (Bom)(rendered independent of CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)), not considered by it in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra)); CIT v. Chandulal [1985] 152 ITR 238 (AP); CIT v. Mithila Motors Pvt. Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 75…

Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…hich were referred to in Manjunatha (supra), is that a defect in notice, assuming so, would not invalidate proceedings, but only make it irregular Vankata Narayana & Sons (supra);T.A. Abdul Khader v. CWT [2008] 296 ITR 20 (Ker); CIT vs. Maharaj Krishna [2000] 246 ITR 327 (Del); CIT vs. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Pat); Hajarilal Kishorilal v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 563 (MP). The nature of the notice u/s. 274, and in the specific context of non-strike off of a limb under which the assessee’s case falls and, thus, not conveying the charge, stands in fact examined per several decisions viz. Manu Engineer…

DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

ITA 162/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Satyajit GoelFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R

Section 144Section 144C(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…ng of the inapplicable portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice." The same was held in the decision of (i) CIT Vs Kausalya and others (Bom) 216 ITR 660 (ii) H.P. State Forest Corpn. Ltd. Vs CIT & Ors. (HP) 267 ITR 285 (iii) CIT Vs Maharaj Krishnan (Del) 246 ITR 327. 2. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law & on facts in deleting the initiation of penalty. proceedings vide penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) on 26.05.2014 while passing assessment order u/s 144(C)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without taking into account that the assessee company did not ra…

DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

ITA 161/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Satyajit GoelFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R

Section 144Section 144C(4)Section 271(1)(c)

Sh. Maninder Singh Prop. M/S Dashmesh Bricks, Bathinda vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)

Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…n of section 292B on the statute-book w.e.f. 1/10/1975 saving any omission in the notice. Further, reference in this context may also be made to decisions in H. P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 285 (HP) and CIT v. Maharaj Krishnan [2000] 246 ITR 327 (Del), rendered without noticing s. 292B. That substance is to prevail over form is even otherwise trite law. The decision by the Hon’ble High Court in SSA’s Emrald Meadows’ case, which stands not interfered with by the Apex Court by dismissing the Revenue’s SLP, is rendered following the decision by the same court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & G…