CIT v. Chandulal

152 ITR 238High Court1985#5229 most cited
23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 274section 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27business

Judgments citing CIT v. Chandulal

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

…nstances 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 751 (Pat); Hajarilal Kishorilal v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 563 (MP). None of these decisions, based on fundamental principles of law, stand considered in the decisions in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra). Most of the decisions in t…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member Yoonus 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. Date of Hearing: 03.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2023 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the confirmation of penalty levied u…

VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 235/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…ng of inaccurate particulars of income as per the notice and that the penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the limbs is concerned, the ld.DR referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chandulal reported in 152 ITR 238 submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee clearly understood the nature of offence alleged against him, notice issued u/s 274 would not be invalid simply because ITO failed to strike off inappropriate portion of language in said notice describing alleged offence. Referring to para 8 and 9 of the order…

MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 234/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…ng of inaccurate particulars of income as per the notice and that the penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the limbs is concerned, the ld.DR referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chandulal reported in 152 ITR 238 submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee clearly understood the nature of offence alleged against him, notice issued u/s 274 would not be invalid simply because ITO failed to strike off inappropriate portion of language in said notice describing alleged offence. Referring to para 8 and 9 of the order…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI SAMBA SIVARAO M,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 540/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The grievance of the Revenue Department is that the ld. Commissioner while cancelling penalty, ignored the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. Chandulal (152 ITR 238) and Srinivasa Pitty & Sons Vs. CIT (173 ITR 306) and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sundaram Finance Ltd. [(2013) 35 taxmann.com 65 (Madras)], wherein it was held that mere failure to strike-off inappropriate portion in a notice will not render it invalid. Further even if there is defect in notice, it had caused no prejudic…

DY CIT CC 4 (1), MUMBAI vs. CENTAUR MERCHANTILE PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 324/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…'ble Apex Court is dismissal simpliciter and the same is not binding in view of the decision of Hon'ble SC as held in Shanmugavel Nadar 263ITR 658 (SC)? 4. Whether Ld. CJT(A) is correct in cancelling penalty by ignoring several decisions like CIT Vs Chandulal 152 ITR 238 (AP) and Srinivasa Pitty & Sons Vs CIT 173 FTR 306 where it was held that non striking off irrelevant portion cannot render penalty notice as invalid? 5. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is correct in cancelling penalty by following the decision of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT 403 ITR 407 (Madras) where Hon'ble Madras HC has considered the decision of SSA Eme…

PRADEEP SOOD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- I, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 534/Del/2018 (A.Y 2004-05) (Through Video Conferencing) Pradeep Sood Vs Dcit Rra Tax India, D-28, South Central Circle-1 Extension, Part-1, Faridabad, Haryana New Aezps3313K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…dated 02/08/2018 in I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017. The Tribunal examined various decisions including that of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of Chandulal (152 ITR 238), as well as the decision of the Tribunal in case of Shilov Sharrna vs. ITO, W-l(4), Noida, A.Y. 2009-10 Date of order 31.07.2017. In this ease the assessee relying upon the case of Munjunatha Cotton took additional ground that the show cause notice issued did not spell out any specific charge whether penalty proceedings were being initiated for…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SRI BAJRANG KUMAR AGRAWAL, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/CTK/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshmamat, CIT DR
Section 271Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-2010 DCIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur Vs. Sri Bajrang Kumar Agarwal, Om Niwas, Barsuan, Sundargarh PAN/GIR No.AAVPA 3653 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AR Revenue by : Shri S.M.Keshmamat, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 14 /01/ 2020 Date of Pronouncement : 14/01/2020 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 26.6.2018 for the assessment…

MATHALA VENKATA SURYA SIVA PRASAD, ,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.113/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Mathala Venkata Surya Vs. Income Tax Officer Siva Prasad Ward-4 D.No.29-1-23C Rajahmundry Devichowk, Rajahmundry [Pan :Adcpm6281E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…der passed u/s 271(1)(c) cannot survive and required to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chandulal 152 ITR 238 (AP) upheld the notice without striking the irrelevant column. The Ld.DR further submitted that the said judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not considered in the recent judgement of Smt.Baisetty Revathi, therefore, argued that mere non striking of the irrelevant column does not render the notice invalid. Hence argued that t…

YARAMATI VEERA RAGHAVULU,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleyaramati Veera Raghavulu, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Prop. Gowthami Refrigeration Rajamahendravaram. Services, D.No. 36-10-47, Stadium Road, Innispeta, Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aanpy 9557 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it is a premature notice and submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is a valid notice. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandulal [(1985) 152 ITR 238]. 11. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 12 The only issue for adjudication before us is whether the notice issued by the Assessing Officer dated 29/03/2014 is valid or not. For the sake of convenience, the notice is extracted as under:- “Whereas in the course of proceedings…

SRI VENKATESWARAVADDERA COOLIE SANGAM,,ELURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Venkateswara Vaddera Vs. Income Tax Officer Coolie Sangam Ward-1 D.No.6A-13-6, Ponangi Road Eluru Southern Street Eluru [Pan :Aacts4370F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…a Vaddera Coolie Sangam, Eluru survive and required to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chandulal 152 ITR 238 (AP) upheld the notice issued without striking the irrelevant column in the notice and the said judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not considered in the recent judgement of Smt.Baisetty Revathi, therefore, argued that mere non striking of the irrelevant column does not render the notice invalid. Hence argued that the notice…

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ne of the two limbs on which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in a notice u/s. 274, inapplicable in the instant case, has the subject matter of consideration by the Honb’le Courts, as in CIT vs. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Pat); CIT v. Chandulal [1985] 152 ITR 238 (AP); CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom), and recently 5 ITA Nos. 131/Asr/2018 (AY 2012-13) Malwa Motors v. ITO again by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT [2018] 400 ITR 292 (Bom), to a unanimous verdict, i.e., of it being of no consequence; the satisfaction by the assessing authority at the time…

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…which has been dismissed by the Apex Court, besides decisions by the Tribunal, including by its’ larger constitution. The ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on decisions in CIT vs. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Pat); CIT v. Chandulal [1985] 152 ITR 238 (AP); CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom), also adverted to by the Bench, also affording, on his asking, time to the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Arora, to respond thereto. 3.3 It may, before proceeding further, be clarified that there is no claim, or in facts of the case could possibly be, of the assessee being not awar…

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3288/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 263

…ppeal as beyond jurisdiction as well as on merits. In such appeal, it is open to the appellate authority to decide both the issues i.e., with respect to the jurisdiction as well as on merits. We have gone through the case law of Sreenivasa Pitty & Sons [1988] 173 ITR 306 (AP), wherein it has been held that the Tribunal or any other appellate authority is duty bound to consider all the issues arising in the appeal and not decide the appeal based only on the jurisdictional issue or an alternate claim. Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “4. Mr. A. Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the assessee represents to thi…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HARI PRASAD BHARARIA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as C

ITA 532/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Visakhapatnam. B-101, Vuda Apartments, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.43/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 532/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2009-10) Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, B-101, Vuda Apartments, Visakhapatnam. Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 274Section 292Section 292B

…ed in section 271 (1)(c) do not exist and that it is not liable to pay penalty. (iv) The CIT(A) ought to have followed the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. Chandulal (1 52 ITR 238)(AP) and Srinivasa Pitty & Sons Vs.CIT (173 ITR 306)(AO). (iv) The CIT(A) ought to have held that the case of SSA's Emeralds Meadow Vs. CIT(2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) is not binding in view of the decision of Shanmugavel Nadar (263 ITR 658)(SC), as the same is merely a dismissal, where it was held that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent. (vi) The CIT(A) o…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CHILUKURI HOUSING PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 243/VIZ/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Chilukuri Housing Projects Visakhapatnam. Pvt. Ltd., 9-21-17/2, Ground Floor, Street No. 21, Cbm Compound, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aadcc 1027 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Appala Raju – Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A)- 1, Visakhapatnam erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.92,31,310/- levied u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring and not appreciating the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the cases of CIT Vs Chandulal (152 ITR 238) and Srinivasa Pitty & Sons Vs CIT (173 ITR 306) wherein it was held that mere failure to strike-off inappropriate portion in a notice will not render it invalid? 3. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have further considered that decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of Baisetty Revathi relied upon by CIT(A) overlooking the decision in the cases cited su…

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

…ation of the limb of sec.271(1)(c) in the notice u/s. 274, there are several decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts, as in CIT v. Manu Engineering Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 (Guj); CIT vs. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Pat); CIT v. Chandulal [1985] 152 ITR 238 (AP); CIT vs. Kaushalya & Ors. [1994] 216 ITR 660 (Bom), holding it to be of little consequence, also clarifying the import of the notice u/s. 274. Again, it may be noted that these decisions are either under the 1922 Act or prior to the insertion of section 292B on the statute-book w.e.f. 1/10/1975 saving any omission in the notice. Further, ref…

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3287/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…ppeal as beyond jurisdiction as well as on merits. In such appeal, it is open to the appellate authority to decide both the issues i.e., with respect to the jurisdiction as well as on merits. We have gone through the case law of Sreenivasa Pitty & Sons [1988] 173 ITR 306 (AP), wherein it has been held that the Tribunal or any other appellate authority is duty bound to consider all the issues arising in the appeal and not decide the appeal based only on the jurisdictional issue or an alternate claim. Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “4. Mr. A. Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the assessee represents to th…

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3286/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…ppeal as beyond jurisdiction as well as on merits. In such appeal, it is open to the appellate authority to decide both the issues i.e., with respect to the jurisdiction as well as on merits. We have gone through the case law of Sreenivasa Pitty & Sons [1988] 173 ITR 306 (AP), wherein it has been held that the Tribunal or any other appellate authority is duty bound to consider all the issues arising in the appeal and not decide the appeal based only on the jurisdictional issue or an alternate claim. Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “4. Mr. A. Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the assessee represents to th…

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3285/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…ppeal as beyond jurisdiction as well as on merits. In such appeal, it is open to the appellate authority to decide both the issues i.e., with respect to the jurisdiction as well as on merits. We have gone through the case law of Sreenivasa Pitty & Sons [1988] 173 ITR 306 (AP), wherein it has been held that the Tribunal or any other appellate authority is duty bound to consider all the issues arising in the appeal and not decide the appeal based only on the jurisdictional issue or an alternate claim. Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “4. Mr. A. Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the assessee represents to th…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2