CIT v. Chandulal

152 ITR 238High Court1985#5144 most cited

What is CIT v. Chandulal authority for?

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) is not invalid solely because the assessing officer failed to strike off the inappropriate portion of the notice describing the alleged offense, provided the assessee understood the nature of the offense.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chandulal · section 271(1)(c) · section 274 · penalty notice · inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · defective notice · invalid notice · striking off notice

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Chandulal

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3284/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

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 3283/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

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 Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3282/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2001-02

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…